903 F.3d 766
8th Cir.2018Background
- Gerald Johnson, a high-school special education teacher, was criminally charged after a student alleged he locked a door and touched her inappropriately; state prosecution later dismissed after the court suppressed unpreserved school surveillance videos.
- Des Moines police investigators Moody and Mathis interviewed witnesses, viewed videos, and preserved only notes/screenshots; the state court found no law-enforcement bad faith in losing the video but suppressed the videos as unfair to the defense.
- Johnson and his wife sued Moody, Mathis, Police Chief Wingert, and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (substantive due process) and multiple Iowa tort theories (malicious prosecution, negligent hiring/supervision, respondeat superior, loss of consortium).
- Defendants removed the case and promptly moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and collateral-estoppel effects from the state-court findings; they attached state-court hearing transcripts and evidence.
- Plaintiffs opposed summary judgment and filed a Rule 56(d) affidavit seeking discovery (depositions, department policies, communications, expert opinions) but the district court denied the 56(d) request and granted summary judgment for Defendants.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 56(d) request and that Moody and Mathis were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to produce affirmative evidence of conscience-shocking investigatory misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery | 56(d) delay required to obtain evidence of bad faith, training, policies, communications | Summary judgment proper pre-discovery; plaintiffs failed to show sought facts exist or are essential; speculative fishing | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; plaintiffs failed Rule 56(d) three-part showing |
| Qualified immunity on §1983 substantive due process claim (Count I) | Investigation was reckless/conscience-shocking; discovery would show misconduct and concealment of exculpatory evidence | Investigators’ record and state-court findings show no conscience-shocking conduct; immunity may be resolved early | Affirmed: Moody and Mathis entitled to qualified immunity; plaintiffs offered no affirmative evidence of bad faith |
| Supervisory liability and respondeat superior (Count II, VII) | City/Chief liable for policies/failure to train and supervise | Supervisor/City liability depends on underlying constitutional or tort liability of officers | Affirmed dismissal: supervisory and respondeat superior claims fail because individual officers not liable |
| State malicious prosecution and related tort claims (Count III, IV, IX) | Plaintiffs contend investigation and preservation failures support malicious prosecution and related torts | No evidence of malice or lack of probable cause; no underlying tort by employees; consortium derivative on dismissed claims | Affirmed dismissal: no evidence of malice/probable-cause failure; derivative claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (Rule 56(d) standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity should be resolved early; framework for the two prongs)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (limits and procedures for discovery where qualified immunity and motive are at issue)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective qualified-immunity standard)
- Akins v. Epperly, 588 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2009) (conscience-shocking standard for failure-to-investigate due-process claims)
- Robinson v. Terex Corp., 439 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2006) (Rule 56(d) allows delay to discover evidence that could rebut summary judgment)
- A.H. v. St. Louis Cty., Mo., 891 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2018) (supervisory liability requires underlying constitutional violation)