George Alvarez v. City of Brownsville
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11338
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Alvarez pleaded guilty in Texas to assault on a public servant and received a suspended sentence that was later revoked; he served prison time after failing a treatment condition.
- Years later videos of the jail altercation were discovered in a separate § 1983 case; Alvarez filed a state habeas claiming the Brownsville Police Department (BPD) had withheld the videos in violation of Brady.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found Alvarez actually innocent based on the newly discovered videos, set aside the conviction, and the state dismissed the charges.
- Alvarez then sued the City of Brownsville and multiple officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a municipal Brady nondisclosure claim (and other claims later dismissed).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Alvarez on the municipal Brady claim, trial on damages resulted in a $2 million award (plus fees), and the City appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding Alvarez’s guilty plea precluded him from bringing a Brady-based § 1983 claim, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a guilty plea bars a § 1983 Brady claim for nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence | Alvarez argued that because his conviction was later vacated and he seeks damages (not to reopen the plea), his Brady rights were violated and the City can be liable | The City argued a guilty plea waives the right to assert Brady claims, so Alvarez cannot establish a constitutional violation required for § 1983 liability | Held: A guilty plea precludes asserting a Brady claim under § 1983; Alvarez’s plea bars the claim, case dismissed |
| Whether the undisclosed videos were Brady material | Alvarez: videos were exculpatory/impeaching and would have affected the outcome | City: disputed or argued legal bar of guilty plea controls regardless of content | Court did not reach merits because guilty-plea bar dispositive |
| Whether a BPD policy of nondisclosure existed and caused a constitutional violation | Alvarez: municipal policy/practice caused the nondisclosure and thus municipal liability under Monell | City: disputed policy/existence and causation | Court did not reach merits because guilty-plea bar dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (no constitutional right to impeachment material before pleading guilty)
- Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir.) (guilty plea waives right to assert Brady on direct appeal/habeas)
- United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.) (extends Ruiz to preclude Brady claims after guilty plea)
- McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782 (7th Cir.) (distinguishes impeachment vs. exculpatory evidence; suggests Due Process may require disclosure of actual-innocence evidence before plea)