Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, the legal guardians and conservators of their adult son, sued the City and an investigator with the police department, alleging deprivation of the son's constitutional and statutory rights. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the investigator where his behavior during the interrogation did not shock the conscience, the adequacy of the investigation did not shock the conscience, the investigation was not in retaliation, and the "charging decision" did not shock the conscience. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the city where plaintiffs have not alleged a pattern of similar constitutional violations. In regards to plaintiffs' section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, claims, no reasonable jury could conclude that defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for the son's disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Folkerts v. City of Waverly, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a retired military police officer, sued the city and its former police chief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claimed that the police chief used excessive force when he, without identifying himself as a police officer and dressed in street clothes, charged at plaintiff. The court held that, because there was enough evidence of a Fourth Amendment seizure, the court need not decide whether a reasonable jury could find the police chief's conduct shocked the conscience in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a reasonable jury could find that the police chief was an overzealous police officer who used excessive force and unreasonably caused plaintiff severe injuries; and the police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that plaintiff could not establish that the police chief was - as a matter of Missouri law - a final policymaker for the city. Because no reasonable jury could find the city liable under section 1983, the district court correctly granted the city's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the former Mayor of the City of Russelville and the members of the Russellville City Council in federal district court, alleging age and race discrimination. Defendants subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal, seeking a reversal of the district court's denial of legislative immunity. The court concluded that defendants were entitled to legislative immunity where defendants not only eliminated plaintiff's position, but also instantaneously created a seemingly identical position. In the present case, control over the position at issue moved from the Mayor to the City Council, a quintessential legislative decision. View "Leaphart v. Williamson, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits. The court rejected plaintiff's contention to the extent that she alleged the ALJ failed to develop the record or make explicit findings regarding the mental and physical demands of her past relevant work as a factory packer and assembler. The court concluded that the ALJ had sufficient evidence on the record as a whole to reach his determination where the ALJ adequately compared the demands of plaintiff's past with her residual functioning capacity to perform light work, including with her manipulative limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Young v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the City and several city officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, challenging a city ordinance prohibiting outdoor smoking on certain public property. The court held that the right to smoke was not a fundamental right and the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's due process claim. The court also held that because plaintiff did not plead facts plausibly indicating that smokers constituted a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the district court did not err in dismissing his equal protection claim. Because the city's health-based justification was sufficient, the court held that plaintiff's claim that the law failed rational basis review was properly dismissed. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining constitutional claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Gallagher v. City of Clayton, et al" on Justia Law

Dawson Farms challenged the RMA's denial of its crop-insurance claim alleging loss due to "tuber rot" in stored potatoes. A final agency review affirmed the RMA's denial of Dawson Farms' claim, finding that the insurance adjuster's sampling of the stored potatoes followed adequate sample procedures. Dawson Farms appealed the final agency decision to the district court, which affirmed. The court believed that, in light of the nature of the hearing officer's finding under review, the deputy director's statements made it reasonably discernable that the deputy director applied the correct legal standard and considered the record for the proper purpose of reviewing the hearing officer's decision for substantial evidence. The hearing officer based his conclusion largely on the testimony of an expert in potato pathology. The court also believed that, to the extent the deputy director's determination was a rejection of the hearing officer's finding that the adjuster had a duty to resample, the issue under review was a question of law. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious action by the deputy director. Further, the agency determination was supported by substantial evidence. View "Dawson Farms v. Risk Management Agency" on Justia Law

TYBE, a daycare center in St. Louis, Missouri, sued the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHS), alleging federal civil rights and state law violations because DHS denied TYBE's license renewal request. On appeal, TYBE challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment on its due process claims and its state-law tortious interference claim. The court held that TYBE had not demonstrated that it had a clearly established property interest in renewal of its license and therefore defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that, if TYBE had a legitimate claim of entitlement to operate during the revocation review period, this right was not clearly established, and any injury to TYBE's reputation, by itself, would not trigger any protectable liberty interest. Therefore, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the challenged statements. The court rejected TYBE's claims that defendants deprived it of due process by failing to make an initial settlement offer to TYBE in conjunction with the license denial review proceedings. The court further held that TYBE was not deprived of any due process rights by a DHS employee's motion to dismiss TYBE's complaint. Finally, TYBE's tortious interference claim failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Austell, et al. v. Sprenger, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, cattle producers, appealed the district court's dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), complaint, alleging that a government employee negligently caused illness and death within their cattle herd by mandating a toxic plant mixture on pasture land enrolled in a conservation program. The district court held that the allegations of negligence involved the employee's exercise of protected discretion and therefore fell within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court held that the employee's selection of a seeding plan was discretionary but that it was not the type of discretionary action Congress intended to shield from suit. View "Herden, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Perks applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. An ALJ denied Perks's application. On appeal to the appeals council, Perks submitted additional evidence. The appeals council noted the receipt of the additional evidence but denied further review of Perks's claim. The district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Perks was not disabled; and (2) the additional evidence submitted to the appeals council did not undermine the ALJ's determination, as the ALJ would not have reached a different result with the additional evidence and the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

The Laborers District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota (the Union) petitioned for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board ordering the Union to cease and desist violating section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercing Lake Area Fence, a newly formed commercial fencing subcontractor, not to do fence installation work for Century Fence Company, a nonunion contractor. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-petition to enforce its decision and order, holding that the Board's decision was a reasonable construction of the statute and was supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole.