Lynch v. Barrett, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 290

Lynch sues Denver police Barrett, Kenfield, and Morelock for violating his right to court access by not disclosing which officer used excessive force during his March 2008 arrest; the events occurred when Lynch fled a nightclub confrontation and was beaten while restrained.
Lynch also claims the City maintained a policy or practice that fostered a “conspiracy of silence” obstructing redress for misconduct.
The district court denied the officers’ qualified-immunity defense and denied the City’s standard (non-immunity) summary judgment motion.
The officers appeal under the collateral-order doctrine; the City appeals seeking pendent appellate review.
The panel reverses the district court on the denial of qualified immunity, dismisses the City’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remands for further proceedings.
Key factual backdrop centers on whether the officers’ conduct constituted an evidentiary cover-up that infringed Lynch’s access-to-courts rights; the courts treat the facts in the district court’s order as assumed for purposes of this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Lynch’s denial-of-access claim.	Lynch contends a cognizable right to court access arose from a cover-up.	Officers argue the right is not clearly established and the record does not show participation.	Yes, qualified immunity applies; right not clearly established.
Whether the denial-of-access claim based on a backwards-looking theory is cognizable and clearly established.	Lynch argues a backwards-looking right exists under Harbury/Jennings.	Officers contend the right is not clearly established in this context.	Assumes possible backwards-looking theory but ultimately holds no clearly established right for these facts.
Whether the City’s appeal is properly before the court (pendent jurisdiction) given the officer defendants’ appeal.	City seeks review of a non-appealable district-order via pendent jurisdiction.	Moore/Swint guidance allows pendent review only when appropriate.	City’s appeal dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (reaffirmed standard for qualified immunity analysis)
Harbury v. Meigs?, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (backwards-looking right-to-access discussion; not clearly establishing such a claim)
Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004) (backwards-looking access claim not clearly established in circuit at the time)
Wilson v. Meeks, 52 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995) (rejected police code-of-silence as constitutional violation; right to access not automatic)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (summary-judgment immunity rulings not immediately appealable; limits on review of record)