Cooper v. Martin
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806
8th Cir.2011Background
- Cooper sues Martin (individually and in official capacity) and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ACRA, and tort claims; district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity and other claims.
- Martin investigated the Williams assault; Williams provided affidavits for arrests but investigators did not interview Williams' treating paramedics or Cooper's witnesses.
- Martin forwarded Williams's affidavits to prosecutor and judge, and did not swear to facts or discuss contents with the judge; warrants issued for Cooper and others.
- Cooper alleges Martin failed to investigate, misrepresented cooperation to the prosecutor, and relied on an intoxicated victim’s account; charges were later nolle prosse
- District court denied qualified immunity and defendants’ summary judgment motion; on appeal, court reverses in part and remands for further proceedings
- The ruling addresses whether Martin’s conduct violated clearly established rights and whether official-capacity claims remain viable given qualified immunity
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin is entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 claims | Cooper | Martin | No; district court erred; reversed in part due to lack of showing recklessness/conflict with clearly established rights |
| Whether Martin’s conduct violated a clearly established right given probable cause | Cooper | Martin | No clear showing of violation; Malley-related liability not shown for non-affiant officer; record insufficient to prove knowledge of false material facts |
| Whether the district court erred in finding disputed facts about informing the judge of cooperation | Cooper | Martin | District court erred; no evidence that Martin told judge suspects were uncooperative; no genuine dispute on this fact |
| Whether the district court properly adjudicated the sufficiency of investigation under recklessness standard | Cooper | Martin | Under Brockinton, negligent investigation does not violate due process; not enough to show recklessness; immunity warranted |
| Whether pendent appellate jurisdiction allows dismissal of official-capacity claims | Cooper | Defendants | Martin’s qualified immunity forecloses official-capacity §1983 claims; claims dismissed absent viable underlying liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (probable cause standard for arrest warrants; non-affiant liability not extended here)
- Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489 (8th Cir. 1991) (affidavit-based probable cause; officer may be liable if affidavit undermines probable cause)
- Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) (non-affiant officer liability in Malley context not extended here)
- Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, 503 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) (recklessness standard; negligent investigation not a constitutional violation)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (interlocutory appeal; review of purely legal questions; reversed where factual disputes existed in district court)
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (appealability of denial of qualified immunity; standard of review on summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (scope of appellate review in qualified-immunity determinations)
- Wallingford v. Olson, 592 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2010) (two rival versions of events; review of whether record compels one version over the other for purposes of immunity)