8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Jan. 31.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

Civil Opinions

Administrative

Taxation; Notice of Deficiency

Where a taxpayer challenged assessments levied by the government after he failed to file timely federal income tax returns, the judgment for the government is affirmed because the government produced a Form 4340 for both years and a case-history report for one year as well as a notice of deficiency for the second year, so the government established both the existence and the proper mailing of notice. Judgment is affirmed.

17-3463 U.S. v. Meyer, appealed from the District of Minnesota,Gruender, J.

Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction; Contempt; Preclusive Effect

Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order holding plaintiffs in contempt for violating a final bankruptcy-discharge injunction. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that an earlier bankruptcy court order and related state court judgments ruling that plaintiffs could foreclose on defendants' collateral had preclusive effect on the injunction.

Where bankruptcy court possessed independent authority to enforce its own orders and where its prior orders merely allowed state courts to entertain the merits of defendants' claims, it could impose contempt for plaintiffs' violation of a final bankruptcy-discharge injunction. Judgment is affirmed.

17-2439 First State Bank of Roscoe v. Stabler, appealed from the District of South Dakota, Melloy, J.

Bankruptcy

Filing Fee

Where a debtor challenged the denial of her motion to reconsider an order that indefinitely extended the deadlines for the payment of the last two installments of her filing fee, the judgment is affirmed because the debtor did not identify erroneous facts or an incorrect application of the law. Judgment is affirmed.

18-6029 Curran v. Moon, appealed from the Western District ofMissouri, per curiam.

Civil Practice

Dismissal; Post-Judgment Motion

Where a plaintiff challenged the dismissal of federal and state law claims related to his online-trading account, the judgment is affirmed because the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing for failure to state a claim and the denial of post-judgment motions was also proper. Judgment is affirmed.

18-2067Pitlor v. T.D. Ameritrade, appealed from the District of Nebraska, per curiam.

Civil Practice

Freedom of Information Act; Discharge of Obligations

Where appellant challenged the grant of summary judgment against him in an action brought under the Freedom of Information Act, the judgment is affirmed because the agency showed that it fully discharged its obligations under the act. Judgment is affirmed.

18-1338 Whitney v. Department of Justice, appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, per curiam.

Civil Practice

Rule 12(b)(1) Dismissal; Civil Rights Case

Where a plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his civil rights action, the District Court properly dismissed the action under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Judgment is affirmed.

18-1849 Stanko v. South Dakota Highway,appealed from the District of South Dakota, per curiam.

Civil Rights

42 U.S.C. 1983; Inmate; ADA

Plaintiff, an inmate, appealed from the grant of summary judgment to defendants dismissing his 1983 and ADA claim.

Where, drawing all factual and legal inferences in favor of plaintiff, there was no factual dispute that plaintiff was not entitled to relief as a matter of law, the District Court did not err by granting defendants' summary judgment. Judgment is affirmed.

17-2680 Rodriguez v. Page, appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, per curiam.

Civil Rights

42 U.S.C. 1983; Inmate; Invasion of Privacy

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various prison officials, claiming invasion of privacy. The District Court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case.

Where having female prison guards monitor a male inmate through video surveillance did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, plaintiff had no cognizable invasion-of-privacy claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

...