Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances. The district court relied on plaintiff's criminal conviction for assaulting defendant and on defendant's testimony.The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the court should create an evidentiary presumption at the summary judgment stage against an officer who fails to use audio or video recording equipment that he has been issued; the court recognized the unique evidentiary problem of a case involving the use of force in which only one side can tell the story, but declined to adopt such a radical solution; and, even construing the record in plaintiff's favor, defendant's use of force was objectively reasonable where plaintiff posed an immediate threat to defendant's safety and was actively resisting arrest. Consequently, plaintiff's state law claims also failed. View "Church v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief for petitioner, who received the death sentence after being convicted of murder and burglary. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner was not entitled to relief on this Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); the state courts did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington in concluding that trial counsels' penalty phase efforts were not constitutionally deficient and the court need not address whether the state courts unreasonably concluded that there was no Strickland prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to stay the habeas proceedings and file a second amended petition; the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law applying the Ex Post Facto Clause by permitting the victim's mother to give impact evidence; the state court's decision to reject the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), did not apply was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; the jury found three valid aggravating circumstances that clearly encompassed the facts and circumstances supporting its additional depravity-of-mind finding; and the court denied the application to file a second or successive petition. View "Rhines v. Young" on Justia Law

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in light of Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 849 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2017).Plaintiffs filed suit against the Minnesota Secretary of State and others, challenging a statute prohibiting the wearing of political insignia at a polling place, Minnesota Statute 211B.11. This court reversed the dismissal of defendants' as-applied First Amendment claim. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this court affirmed. The Supreme Court then reversed and remanded, holding that the statute violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at an Arkansas prison, filed suit against three prison officials for requiring him to work with deadly chlorine gas without proper training and safety gear. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Eighth Circuit, accepting plaintiff's declaration as true, held that Defendant Perry misled plaintiff and thus the formal grievance procedure was unavailable to plaintiff. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to Defendant Murphy where plaintiff did not file his formal grievance in time. In regard to Defendant Romine and White, the court held that the informal complaint process was capable of use and could have provided some relief and thus the administrative exhaustion requirement applied regardless of whether the formal grievance procedure was later available to plaintiff. In the alternative, plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies against Romine and White. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to these two defendants. View "Townsend v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff after he was terminated as an employee of the Arkansas State Treasurer. The court held that plaintiff's initial argument regarding his defamation, false light, and invasion of privacy claims were without merit because the district court had denied summary judgment on these issues; the district court appropriately granted Defendant Milligan, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the State of Arkansas, summary judgment on plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim where the Treasurer neither accepted nor distributed federal financial assistance; the district court's jury instructions on defamation were not erroneous; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give plaintiff's proposed jury instructions regarding invasion of privacy, agency, and cat's paw theory as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim; and plaintiff's claims regarding whistleblowing activities were not supported by the record and were therefore rejected by the court. View "Singer v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that Myron's violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that amendment of the complaint would not have been futile where plaintiff's allegations raised a right to relief from the speculative level and was not just labels and conclusions. The court found that the relevant provisions noted that an obstruction of an accessible route violates the readily accessible standard unless the obstruction was isolated or temporary, like those due to maintenance or repairs, restocking shelves, or moving items to a storage room. Furthermore, an obstruction was not isolated or temporary unless it was promptly removed. In this case, plaintiff proposed to amend the complaint to allege that he visited Myron's approximately 15 times over the last four years and that the aisles were obstructed by displays and excess merchandise each of the times he visited. View "Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards and Gifts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Director's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims in an action alleging that the Director's procedures for inviting citizens to witness executions violated plaintiff's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff, an investigative journalist who formerly reported for St. Louis Public Radio and now works as a death penalty reporter for BuzzFeed News, wrote several articles criticizing Missouri's execution practices and the Director never responded to his requests to witness any executions.The court held that plaintiff had Article III standing where he has suffered an injury in fact because the Director has excluded him and all applicants sharing his particular viewpoint from viewing the executions. Furthermore, plaintiff's claim was not moot as there was a continuing controversy as to the standing policies and customs of the Department of Corrections. The court also held that Ex part Young permitted plaintiff's suit challenging the constitutionality of the Director's implementation, and thus the action may proceed in federal court. View "McDaniel v. Precythe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to three officers based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. The court held that the officers were justified in their efforts to investigate plaintiff's Facebook post asking in response to a post advocating against gun control measures: "Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?" The court held that no exigent circumstances prevented the officers from gathering additional information before making the arrest. Here, a minimal further investigation would have revealed that plaintiff's post was not a true threat. Therefore, it was beyond debate that had the officers engaged in further investigation, the only reasonable conclusion was that plaintiff had not violated the law for disturbing the peace. View "Ross v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district and the Arkansas Department of Education, in an action alleging that plaintiffs' children were denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court held that Child A and Child L were provided a FAPE and the district court did not err in rejecting their families' claims. The court noted that the district court's strategies, while they might have been imperfect, complied with the IDEA, included detailed strategies to address the children's behavioral problems and contained evidence that the children were progressing academically. The court held that Child S and Child G's claims were not administratively exhausted and the district court properly granted the district's motion for summary judgment on their claims. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert report as a sanction for plaintiffs' failure to disclose the report on a timely basis, and the report was conclusory and non-specific and would not have materially impacted the court's analysis. View "Parrish v. Bentonville School District" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by plaintiff, the former city attorney for Minot, North Dakota. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion seeking to sanction the city for its alleged malfeasance in losing evidence. The court held that plaintiff's sex-based harassment claim failed because the only articulated basis for concluding that she was experiencing sex-based harassment was that the city manager unfavorably compared her work style to the previous city attorney; plaintiff's sex-based retaliation claim failed because she never made a report of sex stereotyping, so such a report could not have been the reason the city fired her; plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm from the allegedly false statements about her job performance and termination in the affidavits accompanying the city's summary judgment motion; and plaintiff cited no authority for the novel proposition that a defendant in a civil action can violate due process simply by submitting evidence in court. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's challenge to the district court's denial of her motion for additional time to respond was not properly before the court; plaintiff forfeited any right to challenge the award of litigation costs; and plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal certain portions of the record was granted. View "Auer v. City of Minot" on Justia Law