Latest 6 Cases: Gonzalez v. Bendt (Civil Rights), East Coast Test Prep LLC v. Allnurses.com, Inc. (Communications Law), United States v. Campbell ...

Don’t Blame the SCOTUS DACA Ruling for Difficulties Undoing Trump’s Damage

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to claims that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term invalidating the Trump administration’s effort to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program license President Trump to take actions that will be difficult for a future Democratic administration to undo. Dorf argues that characterizing the ruling as a win for Trump and his executive power is far-fetched, and we should instead be concerned with the long-lasting damage to the environment and our nation’s foreign policy caused by the Trump administration.

Read More

Gonzalez v. Bendt

Docket: 18-2360

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2016, plaintiff filed a pro se damages action asserting equal protection and First Amendment claims arising out of his grievances stemming from his transfer to FPC Yankton where he was denied permission to possess an aviation manual he had been allowed to have at his prior correction facility. The district court dismissed all but one claim asserting that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when an FPC Yankton Correctional Counselor retaliated against him for filing grievances by denying him prison grievance forms. The district court interpreted the action as one brought against the counselor under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and granted summary judgment, concluding that a Bivens remedy should not be implied for retaliatory denials of administrative remedies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to prove an essential element of a First Amendment retaliation claim -- that denial of a few grievance forms would chill an inmate of ordinary firmness from filing future grievances. In this case, the record establishes that the BOP's flexible four-step process allowed plaintiff to have his initial grievance decided on the merits and then to submit a second grievance that initially bypassed the informal resolution step, which was also decided on the merits. Furthermore, there is no evidence that other inmates would not be granted comparable procedural access to BOP administrative grievance remedies.

East Coast Test Prep LLC v. Allnurses.com, Inc.

Docket: 18-3197

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Internet Law

After unfavorable comments were posted about Test Prep, the company and its owner filed suit against several defendants, including Allnurses and its founder and a user. Test Prep alleged claims sounding in defamation, contract, and fraud, as well as other theories of liability asserting that Allnurses had induced users to post negative comments. The district court granted Allnurses' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the suit against the user for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Allnurses was immunized under Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act from liability arising from the posts on the message board. The court held that Test Prep failed to plausibly allege that Allnurses was the "information content provider" of the posts at issue. In this case, the sum total of the complaint's factual allegations pleaded no more than a "sheer possibility" that Allnurses was wholly or partly responsible for creating or developing the posts made by the message board users. Furthermore, in the absence of any contractual relationship between Test Prep and Allnurses, there is no basis for the complaint's allegation that Allnurses had certain obligations to Test Prep including to take down defamatory or libelous posts. The court also held that an individual user plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a breach of the terms of the service contract; the district court properly granted judgment in favor of Allnurses on the promissory estoppel claim; claims of fraud and claims based on other theories of liability rejected; the district court did not err in granting the user's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and the district court did not err in granting Test Prep's motion to transfer the case.

United States v. Campbell

Docket: 19-3226

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant challenged his 336-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography. The district court subsequently amended the original judgment to include the specific case numbers. The court held that the amended judgment did not disturb or revise legal rights and obligations because it did not make a material change. Therefore, the amended judgment did not trigger a new time to appeal. The court stated that defendant's notice of appeal was timely as to the amended judgment, but was untimely as to the original judgment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to find whether this is a case of excusable neglect or good cause under Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) and to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.

United States v. Overton

Docket: 19-2574

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Defendant challenges, among other things, the district court's admission of dual-role testimony from an officer who interpreted recorded telephone calls as both a lay and expert witness. The court held that it does not categorically prohibit dual-role testimony and when that testimony is presented in a concise and differentiated way so that there is no confusion, it may be admissible. However, in this case, the testimony at trial was not presented in a concise and differentiated fashion. The court concluded that, while portions of the officer's testimony constituted admissible expert testimony, other portions did not. The court further concluded that the officer's improper testimony did not have more than a slight influence on the jury's verdict and was therefore harmless. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that at least 100 grams of heroin was within the scope of the conspiracy and that defendant could have reasonably foreseen the extent of the conspiracy; the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a buyer-seller instruction was not warranted by the evidence; to the extent the prosecutor's closing arguments strayed from the evidence, the error was not so obvious as to undermine the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings; and a comment defendant contends disparaged his counsel did not rise to the level of plain error affecting his substantial rights.

POET Biorefining - Hudson, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency

Docket: 19-2429

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

POET petitioned for review of a letter from the Assistant Administrator of the EPA, contending that the letter embodies the EPA's final decision to deny POET's application to generate D3 Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) by producing cellulosic ethanol from corn-kernel fiber at its facility in Hudson, South Dakota. The Eighth Circuit held that the controversy regarding the EPA's alleged denial of the application is moot and dismissed the petition. In this case, POET has since filed a new, non-identical application to generate D3 RINs at its Hudson facility, which is currently pending for the EPA's review.

Rollo-Carlson v. United States

Docket: 19-1815

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Trusts & Estates

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of plaintiff's suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the VA provided negligent psychiatric care that resulted in her son's death. In this case, plaintiff concedes she was not the appointed trustee under Minnesota law and was only the next-of-kin at the time she filed a claim with the VA. Therefore, plaintiff failed to present the VA with her authority to act as the trustee as required by the FTCA. Because this was a jurisdictional requirement under the FTCA, the court held that the complaint was properly dismissed.