8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Dec. 27.


Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Opinions


Packers and Stockyards Act; Withdrawn Regulations

Plaintiffs petitioned for review of USDA orders withdrawing an interim final rule and two proposed regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act declaring that a finding of adverse effect of competition was not necessary in all cases, in response to the courts' rejection of the USDA's interpretation of the PSA. Plaintiffs argued that withdrawal of the rule and regulations constituted unlawful withholding of agency action.Where agency concluded that promulgation of rule contradicting long-standing court precedent would engender protracted litigation and where the requirement to promulgate rules did not require adoption of final, binding rules, agency did not abuse its discretion in withdrawing proposed regulations. Judgment is affirmed.

17-3723 Org. for Competitive Markets v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, appealed from an order of the Department of Agriculture, Loken, J.


Social Security Disability Benefits; Residual Functional Capacity

Plaintiff appealed an administrative law judge's decision denying plaintiff's application for Social Security disability benefits. The ALJ concluded plaintiff had a residual functional capacity for sedentary work with some physical restrictions, based on the testimony of several non-treating physicians who examined plaintiff.

Where ALJ failed to give reasons for accepting testimony of non-treating physicians over testimony of plaintiff's primary-care physician, who opined plaintiff lacked the residual functional capacity found by ALJ, District Court erred in affirming the ALJ's denial of disability benefits. Judgment is reversed and remanded.

18-1457 Walker v. Comm'r, Social Security Admin., appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, Shepherd, J.

Civil Rights

42 U.S.C. 1983; Prison-Grievance System; Liberty Interest

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a 1983 action, challenging his placement in a special administrative unit and the deprivation of his personal property during his placement in the unit. Plaintiff also asserted a qui tam action under the FCA against prison officials. Where the prison-grievance system did not give rise to liberty interests, inmate could not challenge placement in special administrative unit, nor could he contest the withholding of his personal property where prison officials could limit property in administrative segregation and were not subject to qui tam FCA...

To continue reading