Cordova v. City of Albuquerque
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4309
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cordova was shot eight times by three Albuquerque officers after he drew a gun and (according to officers) raised it toward them; he survived and underwent emergency surgery.
- While hospitalized and initially unable to communicate, officers restricted visitors until he could be interviewed; when he asked for counsel five days later, the interview was stopped and restrictions lifted.
- State prosecutors charged Cordova with assault; the prosecution produced three indictments but each ran into procedural problems, and the third indictment was dismissed on Speedy Trial Act grounds after about five years.
- Cordova sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution, interference with familial association, due process violations (preliminary hearing and transfer from hospital), and excessive force; only the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims proceeded to trial, where a jury returned a verdict for the officers.
- The district court granted summary judgment or qualified immunity to officers on malicious-prosecution, familial-association, and several due-process claims; Cordova appealed, raising those and various trial-instruction and evidentiary errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution: whether speedy-trial dismissal is a "favorable termination" | Dismissal under New Mexico Speedy Trial Act is a favorable termination permitting § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim | Dismissal was procedural/technical and does not indicate innocence, so not "favorable" | Held: Not favorable; dismissal did not indicate innocence (Wilkins standard) |
| Familial-association (visitor restriction) | Officers intended to interfere with Cordova’s family contacts by barring visitors while he was hospitalized | Visitation ban was a neutral investigative measure to secure an uncontaminated statement and protect safety | Held: No constitutional violation; no intent to target familial relationship; qualified immunity granted |
| Due process — prompt probable-cause / preliminary hearing | Delay in returning warrant denied Cordova prompt probable-cause and preliminary hearings under state law | Magistrate made a probable-cause determination promptly; federal law requires a prompt judicial determination, not a particular hearing format or specific calendar timing | Held: No violation of federal due process; no constitutional right to the particular hearings Cordova asserts |
| Excessive force / trial errors & jury instructions | Officers used deadly force without adequate warning; trial and instructions were erroneous | Officers warned ("drop the gun") and force was reasonable; evidentiary rulings and instructions were proper | Held: No reversible error; warning instruction and other instructions were adequate; verdict for officers affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (favorable-termination element requires a termination indicative of innocence)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (discussion of constitutional basis for malicious-prosecution claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (right to a prompt judicial determination of probable cause)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force: warning required when feasible)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (conditions on pretrial detainees analyzed against legitimate governmental objectives)