Estate of David Papadakos v. Norton
663 F. App'x 651
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- David Papadakos adopted B.P., a child with prior sexual-abuse history and mental-health issues; in Oct. 2012 B.P. alleged sexual abuse after running away and telling a classmate.
- Detective Norton and social worker Jorgensen interviewed B.P. multiple times at school and the Children’s Justice Center; Estate alleges interviews were coercive and produced false statements.
- Based on B.P.’s statements, a warrantless arrest was made and Utah charged Papadakos with multiple counts of child sexual abuse; Papadakos made statements that could be interpreted as admitting some contact (including incidents while asleep).
- Papadakos lost employment and other positions; shortly before his preliminary hearing he committed suicide and the criminal case was dismissed due to his death.
- Papadakos’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations and malicious prosecution; district court granted Jorgensen’s Rule 12(c) motion and Norton’s summary-judgment motion, and the Estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution — favorable termination requirement | Estate: dismissal for death should not bar malicious-prosecution claim where defendants’ wrongful conduct caused death; court should carve exception. | Defendants: prosecution did not terminate in plaintiff’s favor; dismissal for death leaves guilt/innocence unresolved. | Court: Claim fails — no favorable termination; Estate’s exception inadequately briefed and rejected. |
| Fourth Amendment — wrongful arrest based on coerced/false statements | Estate: defendants coerced B.P.’s statements and Norton relied on false evidence, so there was no probable cause and no qualified immunity. | Defendants: even removing allegedly false statements, other information (classmate statement; Papadakos’s own admissions) gave arguable probable cause; qualified immunity applies. | Court: Held defendants entitled to qualified immunity because arguable probable cause existed after excluding the alleged false statements. |
| Fourteenth Amendment — substantive due process for arrest/charges based on coerced third-party statements | Estate: use of coerced third-party statements violated clearly established due-process rights. | Defendants: Albright and subsequent Tenth Circuit precedent place pretrial liberty claims under Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process; qualified immunity follows. | Court: Held no Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process violation; Fourth Amendment governs, so defendants entitled to qualified immunity. |
| State-law statutory claim (violation of Utah child-protection statute) | Estate: defendants violated Utah statute, supporting due-process claim. | Defendants: violation of state law does not itself create § 1983 claim absent a protected liberty interest. | Court: Held that alleged state-law violations do not give rise to a § 1983 claim; Estate did not show a protected liberty interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (pretrial liberty deprivations governed by Fourth Amendment rather than substantive due process)
- Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2007) (interpreting Albright to foreclose substantive-due-process claims for filing charges without probable cause)
- Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 1997) (government actor obtained third-party involuntary confession and used it to arrest — Court later limited by Albright/Becker)
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause analysis excludes false statements relied upon by officers)
- Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2014) (qualified immunity inquiry asks whether there was arguable probable cause)
- Novitsky v. City of Aurora, 491 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements of malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 include favorable termination)
- M.G. v. Young, 826 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2016) (dismissal that leaves innocence unresolved does not satisfy favorable-termination requirement)
- Kerns v. Bader, 663 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) (probable-cause evaluation requires only a substantial probability, not proof of guilt)