8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 30, 2023

Administrative Law

Disability Benefits

Denial of Application

Treating-Source Rule

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits.

Where the ALJ adequately addressed plaintiff’s treating and examining providers’ opinions and where the treating-source rule had been abrogated, the ALJ was not obligated to defer to plaintiff’s providers.

Judgment is affirmed.

Smith v. Kijakazi (MLW No. 80439/Case No. 22-3492 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Marshall, J. 

Attorneys

Sanctions

Frivolous Litigation; Reasonableness

Attorney Matthew Kezhaya appealed the district court’s order sanctioning him and his co-counsel. Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its civil rights lawsuit against the City of Belle Plaine, which alleged that the city violated the Temple’s constitutional rights by opening a public forum for a Christian monument but refusing to approve a Satanic monument, and also committed breaches of contract and promissory estoppel. The district court dismissed all but the promissory estoppel claim. A magistrate denied the Temple’s leave to amend to reassert its constitutional claims. Rather than appealing that decision, the Temple filed a second lawsuit. The district court imposed sanctions on Kezhaya, finding that the proposed amendments were futile and thus counsel wasted judicial resources by filing a second frivolous lawsuit.

Where the Temple had a full opportunity to litigate its constitutional claims and failed to pursue the proper recourse by appealing the magistrate judge’s decision, the district court properly sanctioned counsel for attempting to evade the decision by filing a second, duplicative lawsuit.

Judgment is affirmed.

Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (MLW No. 80441/Case No. 22-2183 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J.

Civil Practice

Removal

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Where the son of a man who died of COVID-19, allegedly contracted at his nursing home, sued the nursing home and its corporate owners and administrators, and the defendants removed the case to federal court, the district court did not err in remanding the matter to state court since there was not complete diversity, and removal was not authorized by the federal officer removal statute.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cagle v. NHC Healthcare-Maryland Heights, LLC (MLW No. 80448/Case No. 22-2757 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, White, J.

Civil Rights

§1983

Jail Detainee; Qualified Immunity

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff, a jail detainee, filed a §1983 lawsuit against defendant, a corrections officer, alleging that he was sexually abused and harassed during a strip search. Defendant denied plaintiff’s allegation that he inappropriately touched plaintiff’s genitals during the search. The district court denied defendant’s motion, ruling that plaintiff’s verified complaint could be treated as an affidavit on summary judgment and therefore supported a finding that defendant’s alleged actions violated plaintiff’s clearly established right to be free from sexual assault or abuse.

Where plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that defendant’s touching of plaintiff’s genitals was gratuitous and had no justifiable penological purpose, the district court correctly concluded that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity at the current stage of the litigation.

Judgment is affirmed.

Glober v. Paul (MLW No. 80437/Case No. 22-2640 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Brasel, J.

§1983

Prison Inmate; Deliberate Indifference

Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment. Prisoners at a Missouri state prison accused a guard of sexual assault. The DOC launched an investigation, which led to sanctions against the guard that led to his retirement several weeks later. Defendant, the DOC’s director, learned of the allegations during the investigation. Believing that the situation was under control, defendant did not take any personal actions in response to the allegations. Plaintiff, one of the guard’s victims, sued defendant on grounds that she was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety. The district court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because a jury could find that she knew prisoners faced a substantial risk of assault.

Where a DOC administrator could, under the Eighth Amendment, rely on staff to investigate and address sexual assault allegations against a prison guard, the administrator was still entitled to qualified immunity even if she took no personal actions in response to the allegations.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Dean v. Bearden (MLW No. 80429/Case No. 21-3093 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Stras, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Bough, J.

Seizure

Due Process; Damages

Where a woman sued the city and a towing company for unlawful seizure and due process violations after her truck was detained pursuant to a “wanted” report, the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a close nexus between the city and the alleged due process violation, so the judgment on the due process claim is affirmed, and the court declines to reverse the city’s judgment as a matter of law on the unreasonable seizure claim, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting in part the city’s motion for an offset for the sums the tow company paid in settling the plaintiff’s claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Meier v. City of St. Louis (MLW No. 80447/Case No. 22-2206 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Schelp, J.

Title VI

National Origin Discrimination; Unemployment Insurance

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant, the director of the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services. Plaintiff was an immigrant from Mexico who spoke only Spanish. After losing her job during the COVID-19 pandemic, she applied for unemployment insurance. However, DWS initially denied her application after incorrectly identifying plaintiff’s last employer. Plaintiff eventually cleared up the error and began receiving benefits but was subject to a notice of agency determination that she had failed to properly report her earnings. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, expressing sympathy with plaintiff’s bureaucratic difficulties but finding insufficient evidence of intentional discrimination.

Where there was insufficient evidence that DWS’s failure to promptly provide interpreter services constituted intentional discrimination, plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law, and the sharp increase in unemployment claims during the pandemic causing bureaucratic backlogs constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for plaintiff’s challenges.

Kelly, J., dissenting: “In my view, a reasonable inference can easily be drawn that DWS’s actions were motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory purpose…The agency does not dispute that in providing services to Murguía, it violated several of Title VI’s implementing regulations—many of which are incorporated into DWS’s Operations Manual…Considering DWS’s “historical background” with respect to the provision of LEP services, the agency’s departures from its own policies and procedures… Murguía proffered sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to infer that national origin motivated DWS’s discriminatory conduct.”

Judgment is affirmed.

Murguia v. Childers (MLW No. 80438/Case No. 22-2831 – 17 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Contracts

Supply Agreement

Breach; Reformation

Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment dismissal of its complaint alleging that plaintiff breached the parties’ supply agreement. Defendant contracted plaintiff to supply polypropylene bags for plaintiff’s products. During the parties’ relationship, plaintiff sourced most of the bags from Vietnamese factories. In response to “dumping” investigations by the U.S. government, the parties amended their contract to provide that defendant would pay any tariffs on bags from Vietnam while plaintiff committed to finding a new manufacturer if necessary. Although plaintiff located a Thai manufacturer, defendant chose to source its bags from a domestic manufacturer and terminated the contract. Plaintiff asserted a breach of contract claim and alternatively sought reformation of the parties’ contract due to mutual mistake.

Where the terms of the parties’ agreement provided defendant the right to terminate the agreement without cause, it was entitled to summary judgment when it properly exercised that right, and plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement for plates and dies where it presented no evidence that it had incurred any costs.

Judgment is affirmed.

Commercial Bag Company v. Land O’Lakes, Inc. (MLW No. 80444/Case No. 22-3036 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Doty, J.

Criminal Law

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Search Warrant; Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Police executed a search warrant on defendant’s home, recovering guns, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was charged with drug and firearms offenses. On appeal, defendant argued that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked sufficient information to provide probable cause that weapons would be found in his home or vehicle.

Where the affidavit contained some information indicating that defendant possessed firearms, the police could reasonably rely in good faith on the validity of the warrant, particularly where the scope of the warrant was not overbroad.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Dankemeyer (MLW No. 80433/Case No. 22-2850 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Gerrard, J. 

Enticing

Entrapment; Jury Instructions

Defendant appealed his conviction for enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity. Defendant was arrested after he responded to an online advertisement and solicited an undercover detective who posed as a 14-year-old girl. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment.

Where investigators never pressured defendant to pursue sexual relations with a minor, merely affording defendant the opportunity to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity was insufficient to warrant an entrapment jury instruction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Lasley (MLW No. 80430/Case No. 22-1248 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Wimes, J.

Hobbs Act

Sufficiency of Evidence; Crime of Violence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting his Hobbs Act conviction and argued that his firearm conviction should be vacated in light of U.S. v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015. Defendant also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where attempting to steal drugs or drug dealing proceeds implicated commerce over which the U.S. had jurisdiction, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s Hobbs Act conviction, but attempted Hobbs Act robbery did not constitute a crime of violence, requiring vacatur of defendant’s firearm conviction.

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

U.S. v. Dennis (MLW No. 80436/Case No. 22-1759 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Insurance Fraud

Kickback Scheme; Restitution

Defendant appealed from the restitution order entered by the district court. After visiting a chiropractic clinic following an automobile accident, defendant was hired by the clinic to recruit other auto accident victims for the clinic to obtain reimbursement under the victims’ economic benefits insurance coverage. In return, defendant received a kickback for each patient, which he would share part of with patients who returned for multiple visits. Following his conviction, the district court ordered defendant to pay restitution for each patient he recruited.

Where the evidence showed that defendant was paid compensation for recruiting patients and had reason to know that the chiropractic clinic intended to obtain reimbursement from the patients’ auto insurance coverage, the district court correctly concluded that defendant qualified as a “runner” and thus could be subject to restitution for each patient he recruited.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Hussein (MLW No. 80431/Case No. 22-1275 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Stras, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Davis, J.

Sentencing

Appeal Waiver

Where a defendant challenged the below-guidelines sentence imposed in a drug case, the written plea agreement included an appeal waiver that was valid, enforceable and applicable to the issues raised in the appeal, so the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Groce (MLW No. 80450/Case No. 23-1471 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.

Sentence Reduction

First Step Act; Engaging in Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, arguing that his conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise qualified as a “covered offense” under the Act. Defendant was convicted for CCE and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Because the conspiracy charge was a lesser included offense of the CCE charge, the district court vacated defendant’s sentence on the conspiracy conviction pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Where the statutory penalties for defendant’s offense of conviction were not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, defendant was not entitled to relief under the First Step Act, and the vacatur of defendant’s sentence for conspiracy meant it could not support First Step Act relief.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Lee (MLW No. 80432/Case No. 22-2295 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Welte, J. 

Sexual Abuse

Sufficiency Of Evidence; Joinder Of Charges

Where a defendant challenged his convictions for child sexual abuse and witness tampering, minor inconsistencies in the victims’ testimony did not warrant acquittal, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the defendant also did not show that charges were improperly joined since the offenses were similar in character and involved related acts, locations, time periods and evidence, so the judgment is affirmed because the defendant also failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to introduce evidence of prior sexual assault convictions since the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Goodhouse (MLW No. 80449/Case No. 22-3467 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.

Where the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence and properly considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors, defendant’s sentence was presumptively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Maid (MLW No. 80446/Case No. 23-2244 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.           

Employer-Employee

Discrimination

Retaliation; ADA

Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment on his ADA discrimination and retaliation claim. Plaintiff’s job required him to travel across his assigned region to recruit new business. Plaintiff was barred from operating a motor vehicle for six months after suffering a seizure. Defendant developed an accommodation plan that involved having another sales representative drive plaintiff to his appointments. However, defendant terminated plaintiff, claiming it did not have a role for him and that his performance metrics were lower than his peers.

Where the decision to terminate plaintiff was made after his seizure and executives identified him for termination after learning of his seizure and accommodation request, a jury could reasonably conclude that the primary decisionmakers chose to terminate plaintiff due to his disability and accommodation request.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Anderson v. KAR Global (MLW No. 80443/Case No. 22-2808 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Sachs, J.

Discrimination

Settlement Agreement; Enforceability

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement and dismissing her employment discrimination lawsuit. Plaintiff argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Where plaintiff’s employment discrimination action was still pending, the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement and did not err in doing so where the oral agreement reached at the settlement conference did not materially differ from the proposed written settlement and there was no evidence plaintiff had revoked her acceptance.

Judgment is affirmed.

Dirkzwager v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (MLW No. 80434/Case No. 22-3657 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Hovland, J.

Title VII

Individual Liability; Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Plaintiff appealed the pre-service dismissal of his complaint against his former employer and two co-workers. After construing the complaint as raising claims under Title VI, the district court dismissed because plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against his employer and because Title VII did not impose individual liability.

Where plaintiff’s complaint made no allegations regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, the district court correctly dismissed the action.

Judgment is affirmed.

Watkins v. Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. (MLW No. 80440/Case No. 23-2649 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.          

Immigration

Removal

Asylum; Convention Against Torture

Petitioner sought review of the denial of his application for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner was a Sudanese national born in present-day South Sudan. Although petitioner entered as a refugee, DHS initiated removal proceedings after petitioner’s conviction for attempted murder. An IJ denied petitioner’s applying for withholding of removal to South Sudan, finding him no more likely to face harm or torture than anyone else in South Sudan. The BIA concluded that petitioner’s “generalized evidence” of conditions in South Sudan failed to show he was personally at risk of harm or torture either due to his PTSD or the fact that he served as a child soldier for an army that opposed South Sudan.

Where a pattern of mass violations of human rights did not support a determination that a particular person would be in danger of torture and where petitioner presented no evidence that the South Sudanese government attacked people who opposed the government in the prior civil war or that he would suffer conditions tantamount to torture due to his PTSD, the BIA correctly denied his request for withholding of removal under asylum and the CAT.

Judgment is affirmed.

Deng v. Garland (MLW No. 80445/Case No. 22-3621 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Insurance

Municipal Liability

Tort Claim; Extent of Coverage

Defendant appealed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured when he was struck on his bike by a vehicle owned and operated by the City of Hermantown. Plaintiff sued defendant, the city’s automobile insurance provider, seeking declaratory judgment as to the amount of coverage available for his tort claim. Although plaintiff argued that he could recover up to $2 million in coverage, defendant argued that the coverage limit was limited by the $500,000 statutory limit on municipal tort liability. The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, ruling that Hermantown waived the statutory limit by purchasing a $2 million policy.

Where the city’s policy included an endorsement establishing a $500,000 coverage limit for claims subject to the statutory cap on municipal tort liability, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff where his claim fell within the scope of the statutory cap.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Prisk v. Travelers Indemnity Company of America (MLW No. 80442/Case No. 22-2769 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J.

Negligence

Medical Malpractice

Locality Rule; Punitive Damages

Defendant appealed the partial denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law, while plaintiff cross-appealed the grant of JMOL to defendant on the punitive damages claim. Linda Warner died from sepsis after her appendix ruptured during her incarceration. Plaintiff, administrator of Warner’s estate, filed a §1983 claim against prison officials and the medical professionals involved in Warner’s care. The claims against defendant, the jail physician, went to trial. The district court granted defendant’s motion for JMOL as to punitive damages but otherwise denied the motion. The jury returned a compensatory damages verdict for plaintiff.

Where the local standard of care under the “locality rule” was a question of fact for the jury, defendant was obligated to renew his motion for JMOL after the jury’s verdict and his failure to do so waived his appeal, but the district court correctly dismissed the punitive damages claim where there was no evidence that defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard of Stewart’s appendicitis.

Judgment is affirmed.

Turner v. Faulkner County (MLW No. 80435/Case Nos. 22-1469 & 22-1492 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Marshall, J.