Jacob Estrada v. John Healey, Jr.
647 F. App'x 335
5th Cir.2016Background
- Jacob Estrada pleaded guilty in 2007 to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to eight years in prison.
- In 2012 the Texas DPS revealed that forensic scientist Jonathan Salvador had falsified drug-test results; a DPS spreadsheet identified cases affected, including Estrada’s.
- Fort Bend County DA’s Office (Healey and ADA Hanna) received the DPS notifications and reports but did not timely inform Estrada; Estrada’s physical sample had been destroyed in 2011 pursuant to a prior court order.
- After a 2013 TCCA decision and public reporting about Salvador, Estrada obtained appointed counsel, filed state habeas in October 2013, and the TCCA granted habeas relief in June 2014, overturning his conviction.
- Estrada then sued Healey and Hanna under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process (Brady) violations for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence post-conviction; the district court dismissed, finding qualified (and alternatively absolute) immunity.
- On appeal Estrada argued prosecutors had a Brady duty post-conviction and that the defendants were not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity; the Fifth Circuit affirmed based on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady imposes a constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence discovered after conviction | Estrada: Brady’s disclosure duty extends to post-conviction evidence; failure delayed his release | Healey/Hanna: Brady governs pre-trial only; no clearly established post-conviction disclosure duty | Court: No — Supreme Court in Osborne declined to extend Brady to post-conviction context; no clearly established right |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged post-conviction nondisclosure | Estrada: Defendants objectively unreasonable in not disclosing under Brady | Defendants: No clearly established constitutional right; qualified immunity applies | Court: Qualified immunity applies because no clearly established right to post-conviction Brady disclosure |
| Whether defendants are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for their conduct | Estrada: Prosecutorial immunity not applicable because actions were non-prosecutorial/post-conviction | Defendants: Alternatively entitled to absolute immunity | Court: Court did not decide (affirmed on qualified immunity) but district court had found absolute immunity alternative |
| Whether defendants waived immunity by removing to federal court | Estrada: Removal waived immunity | Defendants: Qualified immunity is distinct from state sovereign immunity; removal does not waive individual qualified immunity | Court: Rejected waiver argument; conflation of Eleventh Amendment waiver and qualified immunity is incorrect |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence before trial)
- District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (declining to extend Brady framework to post-conviction evidence requests)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clarifying that existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate for clearly established right)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (definition of clearly established right for qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
- United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2009) (guilty plea waives Brady claim)
- Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000) (Brady violation analysis tied to effect on judge or jury assessment of guilt)
Bottom line
The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal on qualified immunity grounds because Brady’s pre-trial disclosure rule does not clearly establish a constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence discovered after conviction; Osborne directs that post-conviction procedures, not Brady, govern such claims, and Estrada’s rights were ultimately vindicated through state habeas relief.