Eugene Bailey v. City of Chicago - S1983 dismissal of claims in mistaken arrest after schoolyard brawl. Sufficient cause for arrest, no showing of malice in motive for detention lasting less than 48 hours, insufficient showing on state IIED & malicious prosecution tort claims.
Eighth Circuit (Summary from Circuit site):
142220P.pdf 03/06/2015 David Zink v. George Lombardi U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2220 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam En Banc Decision - Chief Judge Riley and Judges Wollman, Loken, Smith and Gruender join in this opinion. Judge Colloton joins all but Part II.A of the opinion and Judge Shepherd joins all but Part II.B of the opinion.] Prisoner case - habeas - Death Penalty. The Missouri prisoners' second amended complaint failed to adequately allege that Missouri's lethal-injection protocol created a substantial risk of severe pain because none of the alleged potentialities the prisoners identified relating to compounded penobarbital rise to the level of "sure or very likely" to cause serious harm or severe pain; even if one of the harms identified were to occur, the prisoners offer nothing in their pleading to support the allegation that it would be more than an isolated incident, and an isolated incident, while regrettable, would not result in an Eighth Amendment violation; the claim, therefore is inadequately pled as a matter of law, and the district court did not err in dismissing it; the existence of an alternative method of execution is a necessary element of an Eighth Amendment claim and this element must be pleaded adequately in the complaint; here,the second amended complaint merely conceded that other methods the Department of Corrections could choose would be constitutional, and this concession, without additional factual enhancement, is insufficient to allege the necessary element of the existence of an alternative method; in sum, without a plausible allegation of a feasible alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of serious pain, or a purposeful design by the State to inflict unnecessary pain, the plaintiff prisoners have not stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on the State's use of compounded pentobarbital in executions, and the district court did not err in dismissing the prisoners' Eighth Amendment claim; the prisoners have not pleaded that the use of pentobarbital will result in unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and they have failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference to medical needs claim; where only the mode of execution has changed, with no allegation of superadded punishment or superior alternatives, the Ex Post Facto Clause is not implicated; prisoners failed to show that changes to the execution protocol deprived them of the timely and adequate notice needed to litigate the lawfulness of the procedures; the prisoners' allegations that the State violates its own execution protocol by executing prisoners while legal actions are pending fails to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause; the State's decision to carry out a lawful execution when there is no judicial stay in place does not burden a prisoner's rights under the Eighth Amendment or other constitutional provision; the prisoners failed to state a claim of qualified right of public access to information regarding the source of the compounded pentobarbital to be used in their executions because they did not plausibly allege a history of openness to the general public; challenges to use of compounded pentobarbital under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act rejected as there is no private right of action under the statutes and the prisoners cannot use the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act to allege the denial of a private legal right under the federal statutes when the federal statutes themselves do not create such a private legal right. Judge Bye, with whom Judges Murphy and Kelly join, dissenting. Judge Shepherd, dissenting in part.142163P.pdf 03/06/2015 Russell Bucklew v. George Lombardi U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2163 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, for the Court En Banc] Prisoner case - habeas - Death Penalty. This opinion should be read in conjunction with the court en banc's March 6, 2015 opinion in No. 14-2220, Zink v. Lombardi,as Bucklew's due process claim is not materially different than the due process claims raised in Zink and is resolved in the opinion in that case. With respect to Bucklew's "as applied" Eighth Amendment claim arising out of his congenital cavernous hemangioma, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte as it was not patently obvious that Bucklew could not prevail and would not amend his as-applied challenge to include a plausible allegation of a feasible and more humane alternative method of execution; on remand, the pleadings should be narrowly tailored and expeditiously conducted to address only those issues that are essential to resolving Bucklew's as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge; at the earliest possible time Bucklew must identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative procedure that will significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the State has refused to adopt. Judge Bye, with whom Judges Murphy and Kelly join, concurring in the result. Judge Shepherd, with whom Judges Murphy and Bye join, concurring.Ninth Circuit:CHRIS KOHLER V. FLAVA ENTERPRISES -- ADA. Bench that exceeds the length permitted by the statute is nonetheless legal under the statute, as it possesses a latent equivalent facilitation (Parallel transfer from wheelchair as opposed to diagonal.) No error in denial of fees, as it was a tough question to figure out.Tenth Circuit:United States v. Hicks Violation of Speedy Trial Act, as a pro forma motion without hearing only tolls the STA clock for 30 days. No Constitutional violation.Al-Yousif v. Trani -- Error in granting AEDPA equitable tolling due to mistaken log entry in computer system for date of judgement; Deference to state supreme court on Miranda claims.DC CircuitFederal CircuitG4S TECHNOLOGY LLC v. US [OPINION] -- Subcontractor is not a third party beneficiary of government contract, given government's responsibilities to the people and lack of direct benefits to the subcontractor. Dissent: It's called "reliance," people.OTAY MESA PROPERTY, L.P. v. US [OPINION] -- Takings award for placement of sensors at the border - no error in partial denial of compensation for "development" lands, no error in the court's arriving at its own figure for the other lands.