934 F.3d 1112
10th Cir.2019Background
- Floyd Bledsoe was convicted (1999 trial) of rape and murder of a 14-year-old; Tom Bledsoe initially confessed, led police to the body, and surrendered a gun; Tom later recanted.
- Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy involving Jefferson County prosecutor Jim Vanderbilt and others to coach Tom to recant and falsely implicate Floyd; Vanderbilt then prosecuted Floyd, who was convicted and imprisoned for 15 years.
- Post-conviction DNA testing in 2015 excluded Floyd and implicated Tom; Tom later committed suicide leaving a note admitting guilt and blaming Vanderbilt and others; state court vacated Floyd’s conviction and charges were dismissed.
- Floyd sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Vanderbilt fabricated Tom’s testimonial inculpation (due-process/fair-trial claim) and conspired to frame him (conspiracy claim).
- The district court denied Vanderbilt absolute and qualified immunity and found the complaint adequately pleaded a conspiracy; Vanderbilt appealed only the absolute-immunity denial and challenged the conspiracy finding.
- The Tenth Circuit considered whether a prosecutor has absolute immunity for fabricating evidence during a preliminary investigation and whether it could review the sufficiency of the conspiracy pleading on interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prosecutor has absolute immunity for fabricating evidence during the preliminary investigation | Buckley alleges Vanderbilt fabricated Tom’s testimonial inculpation during investigation and is not immune | Vanderbilt contends Buckley’s claims arise from use of fabricated evidence at trial (advocative function) and thus are absolutely immune | Denied absolute immunity: Buckley I controls—fabricating evidence during investigation is investigative (not advocative) and qualifies only for qualified immunity |
| Whether appellate court may resolve sufficiency of conspiracy claim on interlocutory appeal from denial of absolute immunity | Buckley argues complaint adequately pleads conspiracy; lower court agreed | Vanderbilt asks this court to dismiss conspiracy claim now (arguing failure to plead) | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction: a denial of Rule 12(b)(6) is not reviewable on interlocutory appeal from an immunity denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors absolutely immune for functions "intimately associated with the judicial phase")
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor who fabricates evidence during preliminary investigation is not entitled to absolute immunity)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (distinguishes investigative/administrative tasks from judicial-phase functions for immunity)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity; absolute immunity for initiating prosecution and presenting the state’s case)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of absolute immunity is immediately appealable though merits remain for later resolution)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (immunity analysis focuses on nature of the function performed)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (absolute immunity not grounded in esteem for actors; courts must apply functional approach)
- Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746 (10th Cir. 2018) (distinguishes mere preparation of false evidence from its use that causes a constitutional violation)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2014) (immunity depends on the act; existence of a cause of action depends on illegality and resultant injury)