Extra Hands, Inc. v. Missouri Dept of Mental Health, No. 21-1873 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment is affirmed; the parties' contract was terminable at will and did not create any protected property interest for plaintiffs; disqualification from future contracts with defendant did not implicate plaintiffs' liberty interest as the disqualification was not based on public charges of fraud and dishonesty and did not create the level of stigma necessary to implicate liberty interests.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1873 ___________________________ Extra Hands, Inc.; Kathy Smith lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Missouri Department of Mental Health; Angie Alford lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: December 8, 2021 Filed: December 13, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Extra Hands, Inc. and its owner Kathy Smith appeal the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de novo 1 The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). review, we affirm. See Pals v. Weekly, 12 F.4th 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). We agree with the district court that appellants had no protected property interest in the contract, as it was terminable at will, see Omni Behav. Health v. Miller, 285 F.3d 646, 652-53 (8th Cir. 2002) (contract with state entity gives rise to protected property interest when contract confers protected status or permanence, or provides that state can terminate contract only for cause; as plaintiff’s contract with state agency was terminable at will, it had no protected property interest therein); and that their disqualification from forming future contracts with the appellee agency did not implicate their liberty interest, as it was not based on public charges of fraud or dishonesty, see Jones v. McNeese, 746 F.3d 887, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2014) (while defendant’s failure to reinstate plaintiff on contractor list harmed his ability to pursue his profession, defendant’s internal emails alleging that plaintiff may have engaged in unethical conduct did not create level of stigma required to implicate liberty interest). We decline to address appellants’ new arguments on appeal. See Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 534 (8th Cir. 2019). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
