DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
143698P.pdf 06/20/2016 Automated Matching Systems v. U.S. Securities and Exchange U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3698 and No: 15-2448 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls [PUBLISHED] Shepherd, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Petitioner challenges an order of the Commission denying its application for a limited volume exemption from registration as a national securities exchange under Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the district court's dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction; the Commission reasonably concluded that the Act does not permit an exempt exchange to operate with the self-regulatory powers petitioner proposed in its application; the district court did not err in determining it did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner's claims alleging procedural deficiencies in the Commission's work or petitioner's claim for a declaratory judgment. 151769U.pdf 06/20/2016 Ryan Koerdt v. Sheridan School District U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1769 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment. 152046P.pdf 06/20/2016 Jason Procknow v. Hugh Curry U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2046 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Shepherd and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In this excessive force case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of certain of defendant's prior convictions; admission of a prior murder conviction was also properly admitted as substantive evidence relevant to the officers' use of force in plaintiff's arrest; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a judgment of matter of law concerning the officers' third application of a taser; given the evidence in the case, this court could not say no reasonable juror could have concluded the application of the taser was an objectively reasonable approach to ensuring that plaintiff was incapacitated and incapable of harming the officers. 152123P.pdf 06/20/2016 Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers v. Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2123 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. The district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs prohibiting defendant, the sponsor of a Red River diversion project,from continuing construction of a ring levee around the communities of Oxbow, Hickson and Bakke, North Dakota; the district court did not err in determining the ring levee was a component of a larger diversion project the planning and approval of which had not been completed; the court did not err in determining the dormant Commerce Clause did not prevent application of the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act as a portion of the larger project will take place inside Minnesota's borders; the district court did not abuse its discretion in waiving the requirement of a bond based on its characterization of the suit as public interest environmental litigation. 152581P.pdf 06/20/2016 Raphael Donnell v. United States U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2581 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Bowman, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Petitioner seeks leave to file a second or successive habeas motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255(h) to challenge a sentence that was imposed after the district court applied the career-offender sentencing guideline, USSG Section 4B1.1, in calculating petitioner's advisory sentencing range; as the basis for the motion, petitioner cites Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct 2551 (2015) to argue that the residual clause of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague; the motion seeks to assert a new right that has not been recognized by the Supreme Court or made retroactive on collateral review; the motion urges the creation of a second new rule that would apply Johnson and the constitutional vagueness doctrine to a provision of the advisory guidelines; the court therefore concludes that the successive motion should not be certified "to contain" a new rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court as required by Sec. 2255(h)(2); the motion for authorization to file a second or successive motion is denied. 152667P.pdf 06/20/2016 Grand Juror Doe v. Robert McCulloch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2667 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Constitutional law. In action by a grand juror in the Michael Brown matter seeking a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes restricting grand jurors from disclosing information were unconstitutional as applied to her, the district court erred in dismissing the matter and instructing plaintiff to pursue all of her claims in state court; the district court properly abstained from the immediate exercise of federal jurisdiction, but rather than dismissing the case, the court should have retained jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings while the parties litigate the state-law questions in Missouri state courts; when the state law claims have been resolved, if plaintiff's First Amendment claim has not become moot, plaintiff may return to federal court and pursue it. 152828U.pdf 06/20/2016 Blondell Mitchell v. Rick Sanchez U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2828 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Lanham Act. The district court did not err in dismissing this action as plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act and her Iowa state law claims were time-barred by Iowa's two-year statute of limitations. 152930P.pdf 06/20/2016 Laquince Hogan v. Wendy Kelley U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2930 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Even if the search of a Crown Royal bag was outside the scope of the warrant in the matter, there was no reasonable probability the contents of the bag would have been suppressed because the inevitable-discovery exception would have rendered the contents admissible; as a result,counsel's failure to move to suppress the search as outside the scope of the warrant could not have prejudiced Hogan, and the court properly denied his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 153620U.pdf 06/20/2016 United States v. Emmanuel Suarez U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3620 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Claim that guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary rejected as it was not presented to the district court in the first instance by the filing of a motion to withdraw the plea.