67 F. Supp. 3d 838
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Gavitt survived a 1985 house fire that killed his wife and two daughters; he was convicted in 1986 of arson and felony murder and sentenced to life, later freed in 2012 after a relief-from-judgment motion based on new fire-science evidence.
- University of Michigan Innocence Clinic filed a 2011 motion for relief from judgment alleging newly discovered exculpatory fire-science evidence undermining arson findings.
- In 2012 the People and Gavitt stipulated to dismissal of all charges and Gavitt’s immediate release; the Ionia Circuit Court granted relief from judgment.
- Gavitt filed a 2014 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ionia County, current and former prosecutors Gabry, Voet, Benda, and Schafer, asserting conspiracy, municipal liability, and injunctive-relief claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)) and, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing lack of state-law or federal-law viability and absence of cognizable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gabry’s counts are barred by absolute immunity | Gavitt contends Gabry’s conduct during skull-session/investigation should not be immune | Gabry acted within prosecutorial functions; immunity applies | Count against Gabry in his individual capacity barred by absolute immunity |
| Whether official-capacity claims against Gabry and successors are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity | Gavitt seeks damages from state actors in official capacities | Official-capacity actions against state prosecutors are state-suits barred by Eleventh Amendment | Official-capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether Gavitt can state a Monell municipal-liability claim against Ionia County | Count VI alleges policy/training failures caused due process violations | Prosecutors acted as state agents; no city policy established; Eleventh Amendment bars; Monell fails | Monell claim against Ionia County fails; no cognizable municipal policy or ratification shown |
| Whether Gavitt’s injunctive-relief claim survives standing requirements | Seeks broad discovery to aid third parties; ongoing harm | No present or imminent injury to Gavitt; standing lacking | Injunctive relief claim dismissed for lack of standing |
| Whether the action should be converted to summary judgment given outside-materials consideration | Plaintiff argues need to treat as 56 habitually | Court may resolve as 12(b)(6) using integral public records | Motion treated as 12(b)(6); no conversion to summary judgment required |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors acting in initiating/prosecuting)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (functional approach to immunity; protects prosecutorial advocacy; not all investigative acts)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (distinguishes advocacy vs investigative functions; some conduct not absolutely immunized)
- Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459 (2010) (prosecutors’ absolute immunity; non-disclosure of exculpatory information; Briscoe-type immunity)
- Latta v. Chapala, 221 F. App’x 443 (2007) (no obligation to do better investigations; probable-cause standard for indictment)
- Osborne v. District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (no ongoing Brady obligation post-conviction)
- Cady v. Arenac County, 574 F.3d 334 (2009) (county prosecutors treated as state officials for Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378 (2014) (Monell and municipal-liability limits re: prosecutorial policies)
- Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303 (2000) ( Sixth Circuit arson/science-evidence claims context)