53 F.4th 589
10th Cir.2022Background
- In November 1999 Floyd Bledsoe’s 14‑year‑old sister‑in‑law Camille was murdered; his brother Tom initially confessed, then recanted and implicated Floyd; investigators later arrested and tried Floyd.
- Bledsoe alleges Jefferson County investigators (Carreno, Frost, Poppa, Herrig and others) fabricated Tom’s inculpatory testimony, falsified polygraph results, produced false inculpatory statements against Bledsoe, and suppressed exculpatory evidence (Tom’s confessions and history of misconduct).
- Bledsoe was convicted and imprisoned for 16 years; 2015 DNA testing (and Tom’s suicide note confessing and blaming officials) led to vacatur of convictions and dismissal of charges.
- Bledsoe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting substantive due‑process fabrication/suppression claims, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and failure‑to‑intervene against multiple defendants, including the four Jefferson County officers who appealed denial of qualified immunity at the 12(b)(6) stage.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether: (a) it had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the Rule 12(b)(6) qualified‑immunity ruling; (b) Parratt bars substantive due‑process claims; and (c) the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as to each claim.
- The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity for fabrication, suppression, conspiracy, malicious‑prosecution, and personal‑participation theories, but reversed as to the failure‑to‑intervene claim (qualified immunity granted for that theory).
Issues
| Issue | Bledsoe's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over denial of qualified immunity on Rule 12(b)(6) pleadings | Iqbal limits review; plaintiffs argued appellate review improper | Defendants: Iqbal permits review of pleadings sufficiency on interlocutory qualified immunity appeal | Court: It has jurisdiction under Ashcroft v. Iqbal to review sufficiency of the complaint on interlocutory qualified‑immunity appeal |
| Does Parratt bar § 1983 substantive due‑process claims when state tort remedies exist? | Bledsoe: Parratt applies to procedural, not substantive, due‑process claims; federal § 1983 remains available | Defendants: Parratt should extend to substantive claims because state tort remedies can compensate the injury | Court: Parratt does not bar substantive due‑process claims; substantive violations are complete on the wrongful act and § 1983 relief is available |
| Sufficiency of allegations and qualified immunity for fabrication, suppression, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and personal participation | Bledsoe: Complaint plausibly alleges fabrication, suppression, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and specific participation by each appellant; these violations were clearly established in 1999 | Defendants: Allegations are conclusory/collective, at most negligent mistakes; qualified immunity protects them | Court: Allegations (including polygraph falsification, coaching, withholding exculpatory material, and targeted investigative choices) are plausible and give fair notice; these constitutional violations were clearly established by 1999; denial of qualified immunity affirmed (except for failure‑to‑intervene) |
| Failure‑to‑intervene — existed and clearly established in 1999? | Bledsoe: Officers had duty to intervene beyond excessive‑force context; defendants observed or should have known violations and had opportunity to act | Defendants: No clearly established duty to intervene outside excessive‑force context; entitled to qualified immunity | Court: While a failure‑to‑intervene theory can plausibly be pleaded here, the duty to intervene in these circumstances was not clearly established in 1999; qualified immunity granted for Count VI |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (interlocutory review of complaint sufficiency on qualified immunity appeals permitted)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (jurisdictional rule for interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity denials)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (procedural‑due‑process claims and state post‑deprivation remedies)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (distinguishes substantive due process claims as complete upon the wrongful act)
- Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2004) (fabrication and suppression of evidence by officials clearly established as constitutional violations)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (officer falsification or reckless omission in affidavit may implicate constitutional rights)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law and fair‑warning standard for qualified immunity)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017) (malicious prosecution claim cognizable under Fourth Amendment)