Free Newsletter
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 2, 2023
Minnesota Lawyer//August 3, 2023
Civil Rights
- 1983
Excessive Force; First Amendment Retaliation
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his §1983 action alleging various civil rights violations and conspiracy claims. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred in dismissing his First Amendment retaliation and excessive force claims.
Where plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to connect defendants’ conduct to plaintiff’s religious expression, his First Amendment claim was properly dismissed, but plaintiff sufficiently alleged that corrections officers used unnecessary force to remove him from his prison cell as he was not resisting and therefore could establish a reasonable inference that officers acted maliciously to harm plaintiff.
Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
First Amendment Retaliation
Excessive Force; Causation
Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment dismissal of their civil rights action alleging First Amendment retaliation and excessive force. Plaintiffs were attending a protest during which officers tased and arrested a protestor. A group of people followed the officers as they led the arrestee away. Plaintiffs verbally confronted one of the officers; when an unidentified protestor shouted out what defendants claimed sounded like “shoot [the officers],” defendant Olsten immediately deployed his pepper spray without warning. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants after granting Olsten summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The district court further ruled that two of the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Olsten deployed pepper spray in response to their actions.
Where video of the incident demonstrated that Olsten deployed pepper spray as a crowd control mechanism rather than to retaliate against specific protestors, plaintiffs could not demonstrate a causal connection between their First Amendment protected activity and the use of pepper spray.
Judgment is affirmed.
First Amendment Retaliation
Qualified Immunity; Interlocutory Appeal
Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Defendant William Olsten deployed pepper spray upon plaintiff and others during a protest. When the district court denied defendants summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, it also reserved ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims.
Where the record could not definitively support finding that plaintiff’s statement constituted a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment, there was no error in denying defendants’ summary judgment motion for qualified immunity, where the verbal interaction might support an inference of retaliatory animus by Olsten. The court remanded for a ruling on the summary judgment motion on the state law claims.
Judgment is affirmed in part and remanded.
Prison Inmate
First Amendment Retaliation; Denial of Summary Judgment
Defendant, a corrections officer, appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.
Where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant chilled plaintiff’s speech by causing him to be seen as a “snitch,” the district court correctly denied summary judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
School District
Disability Discrimination; Negligence
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their minor daughter I.B., appealed the dismissal of their complaint alleging disability discrimination and civil rights violations, and the denial of their motion to reconsider the dismissal of their state law negligence claim with prejudice. I.B. had suffered vision issues since birth, and the school district agreed to implement a §504 plan. The district updated the plan in response to additional concerns about safety during group play. I.B. was later diagnosed with epilepsy, which plaintiffs alleged was caused by the various injuries she suffered during group play at school.
Where the §504 plan did not substantially deviate from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, plaintiffs’ disagreement with the district’s efforts to support I.B. did not rise to the level of disability discrimination or civil rights violations.
Judgment is affirmed.
State Inmate
Inmate Violence; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint for damages for injuries he suffered when he was beaten by a fellow inmate. Plaintiff claimed that defendant corrections staffers were liable for failing to protect him from the beating. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies even though plaintiff remained hospitalized when the deadline to pursue such remedies expired.
Where the district court failed to consider whether administrative remedies were unavailable to plaintiff due to his physical or mental incapacity, it prematurely dismissed the case on summary judgment.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Consumer Law
Specialized Dog Food
Prescription Requirement; Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint asserting consumer claims over prescription dog food based on the allegation that the FDA never evaluates the food to justify the higher price. Defendants removed plaintiff’s complaint to federal court, with the district court concluding that plaintiff’s antitrust and unjust enrichment claims would require evaluation of federal law. However, plaintiff amended her complaint to remove all references to federal law and her antitrust and unjust enrichment claims.
Where plaintiff’s amended complaint removed any possible federal question, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss the case and should have remanded the matter to state court.
Judgment is vacated and remanded.
Contracts
Electricity Supply Contract
Anticipatory Breach; Right to Buyout
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff was a member of defendant’s power cooperative. Plaintiff sought to terminate the parties’ power supply contract so plaintiff could purchase electricity from another supplier. When defendant refused to let plaintiff out of the contract, plaintiff sued for anticipatory breach seeking a declaration that it had a contractual right to withdraw through a buyout.
Where the terms of the parties’ contract only permitted plaintiff to withdraw its membership in defendant’s cooperative after meeting all its contractual obligations and those obligations included purchasing all its electric power from defendant until 2075, and where transfers were only permitted as part of members’ mergers or acquisitions, plaintiff lacked the right to demand a withdrawal.
Judgment is affirmed.
Equipment Lease
Acquisition of Business; Recharacterization as Security Interest
Plaintiff appealed the judgment entered in favor of defendant. Various healthcare entities entered into a lease agreement and related schedules with defendant. After plaintiff purchased the healthcare entities, it sought to be released from any obligations to defendant. When negotiations failed, plaintiff filed suit seeking a ruling that the lease schedules should be recharacterized as UCC security interests. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, awarding it damages after finding the agreement and schedules constituted a true lease.
Where the agreement and schedules created opportunities for plaintiff to terminate and where defendant had revisionary interest in the equipment, the parties’ relationship constituted a true lease rather than a security interest.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minor
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Entrapment Instruction
Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted sex trafficking of a minor, arguing that counsel was ineffective for failing to request an entrapment defense or object at various points during trial.
Where the trial court record failed to provide sufficient evidence to evaluate defendant’s claims, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
Bank Robbery
Revocation of Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for bank robbery and revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, there was no abuse of discretion in declining to vary further downward after the district court considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Appeal Waiver
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where defendant’s challenge fell within the scope of the appeal waiver in defendant’s plea agreement, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Within-Guidelines Sentence; Appeal Waiver
Defendant appealed the within-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearm charges pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. On appeal, defendant challenged the reasonableness of the sentence.
Where defendant’s appeal waiver was applicable to his challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
Drug Offenses
Motion to Suppress; Calculation of Drug Quantity
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, his motion for judgment of acquittal/new trial and the district court’s calculation of drug quantity. Defendant argued that the warrant application for his residence omitted material information.
Although the warrant application omitted material information, there was no substantive defect where the omissions were unintentional as the affiant also left out information supporting probable cause. The search of defendant’s home was also supported by the good-faith exception. There was also sufficient evidence that defendant took possession of the methamphetamine and to attribute drug quantities possessed by defendant’s co-conspirators to defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
Escape
Reasonableness of Sentence; Insufficient Weight to Mitigating Factors
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to escape, arguing that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors and imposed a sentence greater than necessary.
Where defendant’s mitigating factors were not so compelling as to demand sentencing him below the Guidelines range, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion where the district court’s oral pronouncement indicated it imposed a less severe sentence than it initially contemplated.
Judgment is affirmed.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Calculation of Base Level; Prior Crimes of Violence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court calculated defendant’s base offense level after finding that defendant had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence. On appeal, defendant argued that his Iowa conviction for domestic abuse assault by use or display of a weapon was not a crime of violence. Defendant further argued that the district court failed to comply with the rules of criminal procedure in resolving disputes over the PSR.
Where the “use” of a firearm under the Iowa statute was equivalent to “display” and therefore involved the threatened use of physical force, the district court correctly concluded that defendant’s conviction qualified as a crime of violence, but the court remanded for the district court to amend its statement of reasons to reflect that it declined to resolve defendant’s objection to a portion of the PSR.
Judgment is affirmed and remanded.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Flight from Law Enforcement; Sentencing Enhancement
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant was arrested following a vehicular and foot chase. The district court imposed a sentencing enhancement, concluding that defendant had recklessly created a substantial risk of injury or death due to his flight from law enforcement.
Where an uninvited entry into a private home to flee from pursuing officers created a substantial risk of injury, the district court did not err in imposing the sentencing enhancement.
Judgment is affirmed.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Supervised Release; Special Conditions of Release
Defendant appealed the supervised release term and special condition of his release, following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a five-year supervised release term and required defendant, as a condition of supervised release, to participate in substance abuse treatment. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the term and condition.
Where the term of supervised release and the term of imprisonment were within the Guidelines range and the district court explained the sentence under the statutory factors, the sentence was presumptively reasonable, and the record showed that defendant’s substance abuse issues bore a relationship to defendant’s offense conduct.
Judgment is affirmed.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Upward Enhancement; Obstruction of Justice
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court applied a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. Defendant challenged the obstruction of justice enhancement.
Where defendant alerted family to the names of the government’s anticipated witnesses and their anticipated testimony, there was sufficient evidence to find that defendant intended to intimidate or influence the witnesses.
Judgment is affirmed.
Firearms Offense
Enhanced Sentence; Consecutive Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearm offense. The district court imposed an enhanced sentence to run consecutive to an undischarged federal sentence.
Where the district court adequately explained the statutory sentencing factors and its reasons for running the sentence consecutive to defendant’s existing sentence, the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Appeal is dismissed.
Habeas Petition
Conditions of Confinement; Mootness
Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition asserting claims relating to his confinement at FCI-Sandstone.
Where petitioner’s claims relating to the conditions of his confinement, including his confinement in the special housing unit, had become moot, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
Mail/Wire Fraud
Motion to Dismiss; Sufficiency of Allegations
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for mail and wire fraud. In his motion, defendant argued that the indictment failed to state an offense. Specifically, defendant contended that the indictment did not allege facts showing that defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud his wife and an insurance company.
Where the indictment alleged that defendant used the mail and telecommunications in furtherance of a scheme to defraud his wife of insurance payments, there was no requirement for the indictment to further allege a violation of state law to state a claim for violation of the federal mail/wire fraud statutes, and in any event fraudulently depriving a spouse of property may constitute criminal activity even if such property was jointly owned.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession of Firearm by Prohibited Person
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Search of Residence
Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his home.
Where police relied on the apparent authority of defendant’s stepfather to conduct a warrantless search of defendant’s home, the district court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found inside the home.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession of Stolen Firearm
Mandatory Minimum Sentence; Legality of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence of incarceration imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a stolen firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court’s sentence was based on its mistaken belief that a mandatory minimum sentence applied.
Where the district court immediately corrected its mistake during the oral pronouncement of sentence and considered the proposed sentence under the statutory sentencing factors, there was no procedural error in defendant’s sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Stop and Frisk; Reasonable Suspicion
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute after police found over 1,500 grams of methamphetamine on defendant’s person during a stop and frisk. On appeal, defendant reiterated his contention in support of his suppression motion that the stop and frisk were unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
Although police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on his inconsistent explanation of his travel and his awkward movements when handing his bags over for a consensual search, they lacked reasonable suspicion to remove the blanket draped over his shoulders without conducting a pat down.
Stras, J., dissenting: “As the court recognizes, removing a blanket from a suspect “completely clothed underneath” is a far cry from reaching under a suspect’s clothes to find drugs—a full-blown search we said had to satisfy the stricter probable-cause standard. See ante, at 9 (acknowledging that “reaching under a defendant’s clothing may be more intrusive than removing a defendant’s blanket”). Much more on-point is Moreno, a reasonable-suspicion case in which we permitted officers to reach under a blanket to pat down a suspect. See Moreno, 988 F.3d at 1031–32. I would come out the same way here.”
Judgment is reversed.
Supervised Release
Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not err in discrediting defendant’s explanations for his actions, his sentence was presumptively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Unlawful Possession of Firearm
Calculation of Guidelines Range; Crime of Violence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the calculation of his Guidelines range based on his prior conviction for aggravated vehicular hijacking, which the district court concluded was a crime of violence.
Where a vehicular hijacking could not be committed without force or the threatened use of force, it necessarily constituted a crime of violence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Wire Fraud
Admission of Redacted Plea Offer; First Amendment Violation
Defendants appealed their convictions for wire fraud and money laundering, arguing that the district court erred in admitting a redacted plea agreement signed by defendant Phillip Ridings that did not result in a guilty plea, under which Ridings waived his rights under Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendant Jody Davis also appealed his sentence, alleging that the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence based on Davis’s religious beliefs.
Where the plea agreement was redacted to remove any references to Davis and the jury was instructed on the limited use of the agreement, there was no prejudicial error where the jury heard substantial evidence at trial consistent with the agreement. The district court did not impose a sentence based on Davis’s faith but rather his abuse of religious beliefs to manipulate victims.
Judgment is affirmed.
Domestic Relations
Juvenile Delinquency
Destruction of Government Property; Admission of Law Enforcement Testimony
Defendant appealed his adjudication of delinquency for destruction of government property. Defendant challenged the admission of a park ranger’s testimony that, while executing a search warrant on defendant’s residence, he discovered items reported as stolen in a separate incident.
Where the testimony did not influence the district court’s adjudication, admitting the testimony was harmless error. There was also sufficient evidence to support the adjudication even in the absence of that testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
Employer-Employee
Discrimination
Adverse Summary Judgment; Abuse of Discretion
Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment in his employment discrimination action.
Where there was no abuse of discretion in finding that summary judgment dismissal was warranted, the court affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
G.I. Bill Benefits
Employer’s Denial of Tuition Assistance; USERRA Violation
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant, his employer. As a veteran, plaintiff was eligible for benefits under the G.I. Bill, which he used to pursue a bachelor’s degree. Plaintiff also sought tuition assistance from defendant under its employee education program. Defendant denied the request because plaintiff’s G.I. Bill benefits fully covered his tuition expenses. Plaintiff sued, claiming that the denial constituted unlawful discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, which claimed that it denied benefits to any employee who received full tuition assistance from any other source.
Where defendant’s policy denied tuition benefits to employees who received full tuition assistance from any source and defendant regularly helped employees who did not receive full assistance under the G.I. Bill, plaintiff could not show that the denial of his request was discriminatorily motivated.
Judgment is affirmed.
MHRA
- 1981; FMLA
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant on her employment law claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and §1981. Plaintiff, an African American woman, was employed by defendant, which had an attendance policy that required notice of any upcoming absences; three or more consecutive absences without notice would constitute voluntarily abandonment of employment. Plaintiff developed mental health issues and had multiple unexcused absences, resulting in a written warning. Plaintiff submitted a claim for intermittent FMLA leave. However, when her mental health didn’t improve, she requested continuous leave or short-term disability. When plaintiff failed to submit verifying medical information, defendant’s claims administrator denied the claim. After nine days of absence, defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment.
Where plaintiff failed to submit competent comparator evidence, she could not show that her termination for violations of the attendance policy was pretextual, as plaintiff was not approved for continuous leave since she failed to submit verifying medical information.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sexual Harassment Allegations
Sex Discrimination; Wrongful Termination
Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment dismissal of her complaint. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment after receiving a report that she sexually harassed another employee. Plaintiff sued, claiming that defendant defamed her and terminated her on the basis of sex.
Where defendant followed its policies for investigating and imposing discipline for sexual harassment, plaintiff’s discrimination claims failed because she could not demonstrate pretext.
Judgment is affirmed.
Union
Deduction of Dues; First Amendment Violation
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit against their employer and the employee union. Plaintiffs joined the union by signing contracts that authorized the school district to deduct union dues from their paychecks. After plaintiffs terminated their union membership after the termination period expired, the school district continued to deduct monthly dues until the anniversary date of the agreement. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging the deductions violated their First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the action, ruling that plaintiff voluntarily agreed to the deduction when they joined the union.
Where courts had consistently recognized that there was no First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues, the restrictions on deducing from nonmember paychecks did not apply to plaintiffs who signed a contract to voluntarily join the union.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Reinstatement of Removal Proceedings
Asylum; Dismissal of Appeal
Petitioners sought review of their denial of their motion for reconsideration of the BIA’s decision, which granted DHS’s motion to reinstate petitioners’ removal proceedings and reissued the BIA’s prior decision dismissing petitioners’ appeal of the denial of their asylum applications.
Where petitioners’ motion for reconsideration raised arguments that could have been raised in opposition to the BIA’s order reinstating removal proceedings, the BIA correctly rejected consideration of those arguments, and there was no error in denying reconsideration where petitioners’ motion automatically terminated their grant of voluntary departure.
Petition is denied.
Insurance
Liability Insurance
Bad Faith; Policy Exclusion
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims. Plaintiff Sominkcole Conner was injured in a shooting at plaintiff Steven Scaglione’s bar. Conner obtained a judgment against Scaglione and filed a claim against him and defendant, Scaglione’s insurer. Scaglione filed claims against defendant alleging that it failed to defend or indemnify him in bad faith. The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the policy’s assault and battery exclusion.
Where Scaglione’s negligence that facilitated the shooting was not independent and distinct from the assault since he knew that patrons were often armed with dangerous weapons and failed to provide adequate security measures, the assault fell within the scope of the policy exclusion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Related Content
Top News
- Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case
- Court upholds sex-with-minor report submitted by man’s therapist
- Federal judge rules for students with disabilities in age-cutoff case
- Justices remand Duluth dispute
- Legal education for incarcerated students expands
- Hamline prof dismissed over Muhammad image can proceed with lawsuit
- Supreme Court backs woman’s false-reporting conviction
- Pot smell not enough for search
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
- The Unfrazzled Lawyer: Supercharge your unfrazzled lawyer efforts
- Understanding the proposal to extend overtime
- Perspectives: Pill case may be a bitter one for abortion rights
