Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Bloomington, the Hennepin County Attorney, and two Bloomington police officers, seeking a declaration that a state harassment statute and a city ordinance are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, injunctive relief against enforcement of those laws, and nominal damages. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from her desire to produce photographs and video recordings of activities in a public park, where the images captured would include children.The Eighth Circuit dismissed as moot plaintiff's challenge to the harassment statute, which has been superseded by the state legislature; affirmed as to plaintiff's claims for damages against the police officers and the City based on alleged enforcement of the former harassment statute; and reversed and directed entry of judgment for plaintiff on her claim that the city ordinance forbidding photography and video recording in the public park is unconstitutional under the First Amendment as applied to her activity on which the claim is based. The court explained that, because the ordinance is significantly over-inclusive with respect to the City's asserted interest, it is not narrowly tailored and fails strict scrutiny as applied to plaintiff's proposed conduct. View "Ness v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner in an action where petitioner was found guilty of two first-degree murder counts. Although the Missouri Court of Appeals' conclusion that petitioner's counsel performed effectively relied on unreasonable determinations of fact, petitioner failed to show how the error was prejudicial. In this case, the trial court's ruling to deny severance was reasonable and did not amount to an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, even if petitioner could show a substantial probability of severance on appeal, he cannot show an overall reasonable probability of a different outcome in the case. In this case, the evidence against petitioner was convincingly incriminating on both murders and he has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome in either case even if there was a severance of the cases. View "Donelson v. Steele" on Justia Law

After the school districts sought modification of existing desegregation consent decrees to allow their exemption from Arkansas's Public School Choice Act, Ark. Code. Ann. 6–18–1906, the district court granted the motions and modified the consent decrees to explicitly limit the transfer of students between school districts. The Department appealed, alleging that the modification imposed an impermissible interdistrict remedy.After a panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's modifications, the Department moved for rehearing, at which point the United States—for the first time—involved itself in the case and asked the court to reconsider its opinion. The court accepted the invitation, received supplemental briefing from the parties, and reversed the judgment of the district court.The court agreed with the Department that the district court abused its discretion by modifying the consent decrees because the 2017 amendments were not a significant change in circumstances supporting modification of the decrees and—even if they were—the district court did not impose a suitably tailored modification. Because no vestige of discrimination traces to interdistrict school transfers, the district court abused its discretion in expanding the consent decrees to prohibit such transfers. View "United States v. Arkansas Department of Education" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against North Homes, a private entity, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after it confined her when she was 15 years old in a residential correctional unit where an employee sexually assaulted her for three days. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's section 1983 claims. Construing the complaint in her favor, the court concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged that North Homes's exercise of a public function (the state's authority to detain her) caused her involuntary detainment in a corrections unit. View "Doe v. North Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

After Justin A. Stufflebean died after allegedly being denied necessary medication while incarcerated at the Buchanan County Jail and the Western Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center, his parents filed 42 U.S.C. 1983 and wrongful death claims against defendants. The district court denied defendants' motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.The Eighth Circuit concluded that it has found no firmly rooted history of immunity for private medical services providers and the purposes of qualified immunity, on balance, do not favor extending immunity to these defendants because employees of large firms systematically organized to perform a major administrative task for profit are not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. The court dismissed their appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. This holding similarly precludes immediate appellate review of ACH and Corizon's appeals. The court also concluded that Defendants Strong and Hovey, the supervisors of medical care, were not on notice of a pattern of constitutional violations and their failure to verify the accuracy of ACH's reporting is insufficient to create liability under section 1983; Defendant Gross was not deliberately indifferent to defendant and is entitled to qualified immunity; Gross was also entitled to official immunity on plaintiff's wrongful death claim; but the jail's booking officer, Defendant Nauman, was not entitled to official immunity where his inconclusive testimony on accessing defendant's prior records precludes summary judgment on this issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Davis v. Munger" on Justia Law

After Cameron Leftwich committed suicide in jail, his father filed suit alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against defendants for failure to provide adequate medical care and failure to train, as well as wrongful death claims under Minnesota law.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, concluding that plaintiff failed to show that any of the individual defendants (or any other relevant official) was deliberately indifferent to and subjectively aware of the risk of suicide. Therefore, there was no underlying constitutional violation and the individual defendants, as well as the city and the county, are entitled to summary judgment on the section 1983 claims. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in determining Defendants Wegner and Swanson had public official immunity for plaintiff's Minnesota wrongful death claims because they were performing discretionary duties. Furthermore, the county is entitled to vicarious official immunity. The court further concluded that the county is entitled to public entity or statutory immunity because the county's decision to have a mental health exam performed within 72 hours of incarceration is a policy making and not an operational government decision. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion by denying plaintiff's motions to amend the scheduling order and file an amended complaint after the deadlines had passed. View "Leftwich v. County of Dakota" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff where a reasonable factfinder could believe that plaintiff fully exhausted her administrative remedies. The court remanded for a factfinder to determine which set of papers plaintiff filed first. View "Prowse v. Washington" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a habeas action alleging that he received ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel when his lawyer failed to investigate potential impeachment evidence of his own expert witness, and that his death sentence was unconstitutional due to flaws in the jury instructions. The district court agreed and vacated petitioner's death sentence.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment vacating petitioner's death sentence, concluding that counsel was not deficient by reasonably relying on the professional community to vet an expert. Furthermore, petitioner cannot show that, under the circumstances, no competent lawyer could have made the choice to trust the legal community's appraisal of the witness. Even if further investigation was more prudent, it is not clear that the investigation should have covered the witness's falsified lab reports. Therefore, petitioner did not overcome the presumption that counsel performed reasonably by not investigating the witness's credentials.The court also concluded that there was no substantial likelihood that the calling of an alternative psychiatric witness would have led to a different result; the state habeas court did not err in finding that petitioner was not prejudiced by sentencing counsel's failure to call a psychiatrist, and post-conviction counsel was not ineffective by failing to raise the issue; and the district court erred in concluding that the sentencing instructions violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and that Missouri's capital sentencing system violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). View "McLaughlin v. Precythe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 compensatory and punitive damage claims against paramedics for injecting her with ketamine without her consent, and against physicians who allegedly implemented ambulance protocols while conducting the second ketamine study, both in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff also alleged claims of Monell liability against the county, several of its health care facilities, and the individual defendants for developing and implementing a countywide ketamine protocol. The complaint alleged that defendants used excessive force, violated her right to bodily integrity, and acted with deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourth Amendment and her right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. In regard to plaintiffs' claims against the paramedics, the court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's excessive force claims where it was not objectively unreasonable for paramedics to administer medical aid to an intoxicated, suicidal, semi-conscious woman who needed medical intervention; the district court properly dismissed the substantive due process claims where, even if the semi-conscious plaintiff was competent to refuse treatment, the paramedics did not engage in conscience shocking conduct in electing to sedate a suicidal, intoxicated woman to protect both the patient and themselves; and the paramedics were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff.In regard to claims against the physicians, the court concluded that at minimum these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claims related to their oversight of the county's ketamine studies because they were not personally involved in the actions leading to plaintiff's emergency treatment. Finally, in regard to the Monell liability claims, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that the paramedics violated her Fourth Amendment or substantive due process rights. View "Buckley v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state negligence law against prison officials, medical staff, and a medical services company for withholding plaintiff's prescription orthotic shoes.The court concluded that, although the district court erred by relying on Arkansas law to exclude parts of plaintiff's substituted expert's testimony because the matter should have been weighed under Daubert and relevant federal law, the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the nurse's testimony as a substituted expert when her opinions went beyond the scope of the earlier expert report and deposition. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in granting the warden's motion for summary judgment as there was no evidence that the warden recognized the risk of having plaintiff wear standard issue prison shoes or knew that requiring a doctor's authorization for special shoes would put plaintiff's health at risk. Furthermore, there was no error in granting summary judgment for the medical defendants where their actions either did not rise to the level of criminal negligence or were not so inappropriate that a jury would find intentional maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care. View "Shipp v. Murphy" on Justia Law