for the Eighth Circuit

151872U.pdf   06/16/2017  Derrick Howard  v.  Fidelity National Title Ins.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1872
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment. 
  
161412P.pdf   06/16/2017  Rodney Brossart  v.  Kelly Janke
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1412
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. The record supported the district court's 
   conclusion that Rodney Brossart made threats of violence against law 
   enforcement officers, repeatedly refused to comply with officers' orders 
   to cooperate in a potentially criminal investigation and then resisted 
   handcuffing when he was told he was under arrest; under these 
   circumstances, defendant Braathen's use of a taser to subdue Rodney was a 
   reasonable use of significant non-lethal force; even if repeated use of 
   the taser when Rodney failed to comply was unreasonable, repeated use of 
   the taser did not violate clearly established law, and defendant Braathen 
   was entitled to qualified immunity on Rodney's excessive force claim; with 
   respect to Thomas Broassart's claim that Braathen's use of a taser when 
   Brosart failed to obey an order to move over once he was arrested and 
   detained in a squad car was excessive force, the district court did not 
   err in finding the use of the taser was not excessive force under all of 
   the circumstances; claim for supervisory liability against defendant 
   Sheriff Janke rejected as his deputy did not use excessive force; County's 
   taser plan was facially constitutional; plaintiffs' failure to train claim 
   against the County is foreclosed by the the court's conclusion that 
   Braathen's tasing of the Brosarts did not constitute excessive force; the 
   district court did not err in finding plaintiffs' state law claims were 
   time-barred. Judge Kelly, concurring part and dissenting in part. 
  
162599P.pdf   06/16/2017  David White  v.  CitiMortgage, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2599
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil procedure. Under Missouri law, the statute of 
   limitations on plaintiff's contract claims only started running when a 
   reasonable person would have been put on notice that an injury and 
   substantial damages may have occurred and would have undertaken steps to 
   ascertain the extent of the damages; here, plaintiff did not become aware 
   of the problems with the title underlying his mortgage until he tried to 
   sell the property; the suit was timely and the district court erred in 
   dismissing it as barred by the applicable five-year statute of 
   limitations; reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of 
   plaintiff's claims. 
  
163187U.pdf   06/16/2017  Deandrea Gray  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3187
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Riley, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. The clerk is directed to transmit Gray's 
   application to file a successive habeas to the district court where his 
   first section 2255 motion is pending; this application to file a 
   successive habeas should be filed as a motion to amend the first section 
   2255 motion.