Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that a court administrator discriminated against him on the basis of his race when plaintiff applied to represent indigent murder defendants. The court held that plaintiff's second amended complaint did not adequately allege an injury in fact, and therefore did not vest the district court with jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court denied as moot plaintiff's pending motions to take judicial notice, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. View "Ashford v. Does" on Justia Law

A coram nobis petitioner whose motion for 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief was denied while he was in custody must obtain authorization from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with section 2244(b)(3)(B). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in section 2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner whose motion for section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in custody. In this case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's post conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to import machine guns from Eastern Europe by submitting forms with false entries to the ATF and sentenced to sixty months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was no fundamental error in petitioner's case that warranted issue of the writ. View "Baranski v. United States" on Justia Law

A coram nobis petitioner whose motion for 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief was denied while he was in custody must obtain authorization from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with section 2244(b)(3)(B). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in section 2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner whose motion for section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in custody. In this case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's post conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to import machine guns from Eastern Europe by submitting forms with false entries to the ATF and sentenced to sixty months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was no fundamental error in petitioner's case that warranted issue of the writ. View "Baranski v. United States" on Justia Law

Missouri Revised Statute Sections 328.020 and 329.030, which require African-style hair braiders to have a license to work for pay, is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in protecting consumers and ensuring public health and safety. In this case, the State offered evidence of health risks associated with braiding such as hair loss, inflammation, and scalp infection. The Eighth Circuit held that the Missouri statutes did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the African-style hair braiders, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State. View "Niang v. Carroll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Rock-Tenn in a civil rights action alleging religion and sex discrimination. The Eighth Circuit held that Title VII did not impose a legal obligation to provide an employee an articulated basis for dismissal at the time of firing, and an employer was certainly not bound as a matter of law to whatever reasons might have been provided; rather, it was well-established that a employer may elaborate on its explanation for an employment decision; and, in this case, there was no contradiction between the explanation given to plaintiff at the time of his termination and the non-discriminatory reasons for termination that Rock-Tenn articulated during this litigation. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show sufficient evidence that Rock-Tenn's proffered reasons for firing him -- poor performance -- were pretexts for discrimination. View "Rooney v. Rock-Tenn Converting Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of a petition for habeas relief, holding that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), does not excuse a procedural default that occurs in the appeal of a collateral state court proceeding. The court reasoned that Martinez was inapposite to this case because petitioner's default occurred during the appeal from the initial-review proceeding rather than during the proceeding itself, and petitioner did not complain about his ability to present his claim to the state circuit court, only that his inability to timely appeal that court's decision constitutes cause because he was not represented by an attorney. View "Franklin v. Hawley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the county jail's postcard-only incoming-mail policy for non-privileged mail violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by impermissibly restricting her ability to communicate with her son who was then an inmate. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's exclusion into evidence of incoming-mail policies from other institutions that permitted inmates to receive multi-page letters, holding that the district court's exclusion of the other institutions' mail policies was harmless error and the postcard-only incoming-mail policy was constitutional. The court held that the postcard-only policy was rationally related to the legitimate penological interests of an efficiently run and secure institution. Furthermore, alternative means of communications were available and the policy did not limit the number of cards that could be sent. The court explained that accommodating plaintiff would result in a significant reallocation of resources and would interfere with the jail's ability to maintain security and efficiency. View "Simpson v. County of Cape Girardeau" on Justia Law

After Walter Louis Franklin, II was shot to death by officers, his estate filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of excessive force, wrongful death, and negligence. On appeal, the officers challenged the denial of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, holding that qualified immunity did not prevent suit in this case because the precise question for trial was the factual question, an issue which was inseparable from, and necessarily informed, the legal one. The court explained that factual arguments made by the officers on appeal regarding materiality and sufficiency should be made to a jury and did not run to a legal issue on appeal. View "Franklin v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Richard Lincoln had his term of supervised release revoked. His revocation sentence included a new term of supervised release, which had the same special conditions as the original revoked term. Lincoln argued on appeal that the re-imposition of one condition in particular, a condition that he did not object to or appeal from when it was originally imposed, was outside the bounds of the district court’s discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Eighth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Lincoln" on Justia Law

After the district court denied Anthony Scott’s motion to suppress guns seized from his home, Scott conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Scott now appeals the order denying his motion, arguing primarily that the officers’ warrantless entry into the garage violated the Fourth Amendment. Scott also argued that his wife's later written consent did not purge the taint of the prior unlawful entry. Finally, he argued the search was not a valid parole search. Finding no merit to any of these arguments, the Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of Scott's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law