Darrin Hill v. New Orleans City
705 F. App'x 219
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1992 a woman was raped in New Orleans; Detective Cathey Carter led the investigation, supervised by Joseph Hebert and assisted by Allen Gressert; Daniel Waguespack was the criminalist who tested the victim’s underwear.
- Carter sought an arrest warrant for Darrin Hill; Hill, who is mentally ill, was detained for ~20 years, tried in 1999 and found not guilty by reason of insanity, and ultimately exonerated after DNA testing identified another man.
- Hill sued officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging investigative misconduct, suppression/misreporting of forensic results, and conspiracy; the defendants asserted qualified immunity.
- On the first interlocutory appeal this court found Carter not entitled to qualified immunity and remanded to determine whether other defendants (Hebert, Gressert, Waguespack) were likewise implicated.
- On remand the district court denied summary judgment as to Hebert, Gressert, and Waguespack, finding triable fact issues; Hebert and Gressert were alleged to share Carter’s misconduct (conspiracy theory); Waguespack was alleged to have failed to report presence of semen.
- This appeal: the Fifth Circuit dismisses appeals by Hebert and Gressert for lack of jurisdiction (district court’s factual findings stand) and reverses as to Waguespack, holding Hill failed to show clearly established law put Waguespack on notice that his alleged conduct violated constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for supervisory/assisting officers (Hebert & Gressert) | Hebert/Gressert participated in or conspired with Carter to suppress/exploit investigative misconduct; district court found triable facts tying them to misconduct | They are entitled to immunity; appeal challenges district court's factual findings and legal application | Dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction — cannot review district court’s factual determinations; district court’s denial of summary judgment stands |
| Qualified immunity for criminalist (Waguespack) re: alleged failure to report presence of semen | Waguespack knowingly or recklessly failed to conduct/report serological/microscopic testing, concealing evidence that could be exculpatory | Waguespack had no clearly established duty in 1992 to disclose mere presence of semen (not identity), and Hill failed to identify controlling precedent putting him on notice | Reversed as to Waguespack; remanded with instruction to enter judgment for Waguespack on qualified immunity grounds |
| Whether concealment of presence of semen equates to evidence destruction/tampering | Hill relies on analogy to cases where lab personnel misreported DNA results to exculpate/implicate a known suspect | Defendants argue omission of a non-exculpatory test result (with preservation of the physical evidence) did not clearly violate constitutional rights in 1992 | Court: omission of a test showing presence of semen (but not identity) was not clearly established constitutional violation; plaintiff failed to cite controlling authority |
| Reviewability of district court factual findings on interlocutory qualified immunity appeals | Hill argues disputed facts permit denial of immunity and are reviewable in part | Defendants argue this court may review only legal conclusions, not the existence of genuine fact disputes | Court adheres to precedent: lacks jurisdiction to reweigh factual disputes; reviews only legal significance of facts the district court found |
Key Cases Cited
- Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839 (5th Cir.) (qualified immunity burden on plaintiff)
- Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404 (5th Cir.) (interlocutory appeals cannot challenge existence of genuine fact issues)
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (limit on reviewing factual disputes on qualified immunity appeals)
- Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914 (5th Cir.) (section 1983 conspiracy liability allows joint liability without identifying actor)
- Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.) (lab personnel who misreported DNA results concerning a known suspect implicated by clear precedent)
- Cass v. City of Abilene, 814 F.3d 721 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff must identify clearly established law to defeat qualified immunity)
- LeMaire v. La Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.) (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)