Marin v. King
16-2225
| 10th Cir. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- In 2009 New Mexico law enforcement executed three search warrants on Mario and Reyes Marin’s ranch during an investigation into alleged cockfighting; members of the Attorney General’s Animal Cruelty Task Force (volunteer Ms. Heather Ferguson and volunteer Dr. Patricia Feeser Norris) participated in the searches and accompanied officers.
- Law enforcement seized and ultimately destroyed hundreds of birds (roosters, hens, chicks, eggs); no criminal charges were ever filed against the Marins.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) Ferguson and Dr. Norris provided false statements that rendered search-warrant affidavits invalid (violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and (2) Ferguson coerced consent to destroy property (violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); they also sued King and Suttle on supervisory-liability theories.
- During qualified-immunity summary-judgment briefing, discovery was stayed; Plaintiffs conducted a sworn, deposition-like interview of a former deputy (Current) in violation of the stay; the district court struck the transcript as a sanction.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Ferguson, Dr. Norris, King, and Suttle on qualified-immunity grounds; the Tenth Circuit affirmed both the discovery sanction and the grants of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by striking transcript of Current’s sworn interview taken during a discovery stay | Interview was voluntary and truthful evidence obtained before dismissal; striking it unfairly suppressed evidence | Interview violated an explicit stay of “all discovery” and was deposition-like; Martinez v. Carson controls | Court affirmed sanction: striking transcript was within district court’s discretion because interview violated the stay and was deposition-like |
| Whether Ferguson and Dr. Norris can be held liable under Franks for allegedly false statements leading to Search Warrants (Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments) | Statements to affiant were material and knowingly or recklessly false (about steroids, USDA involvement, contagion) so warrants were invalid | Even assuming falsity, plaintiffs cannot show the law was clearly established as to private citizen volunteers providing information that affiant later relies on; qualified immunity applies | Court affirmed qualified immunity: plaintiffs failed to show a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation by private Task Force volunteers |
| Whether Ferguson coerced consent to destroy birds, violating due process (Fifth/Fourteenth) | Ferguson used false statements and threats to coerce Reyes into consenting to destruction of birds | No reasonable jury could find Ferguson knowingly used false statements to coerce consent; further, plaintiffs forfeited a separate notice/hearing due-process theory on appeal | Court affirmed summary judgment for Ferguson and Dr. Norris on due-process claim; plaintiffs’ notice/hearing argument was forfeited on appeal |
| Whether supervisory defendants King and Suttle are liable for subordinates’ alleged constitutional violations | King and Suttle created/oversaw Task Force and thus are liable for Ferguson’s actions | Plaintiffs cannot show an underlying constitutional violation by subordinates or the requisite affirmative link; qualified immunity protects supervisors unless both supervisor and subordinate violated clearly established law | Court affirmed summary judgment for King and Suttle on supervisory-liability and qualified-immunity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (discovery may be stayed while resolving qualified-immunity dispositive motions)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (Fourth Amendment Franks rule: knowingly or recklessly false material statements in warrant affidavits can invalidate a warrant)
- Martinez v. Carson, 697 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2012) (striking deposition-like interviews taken despite discovery stay is within district court discretion)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may address either prong of qualified-immunity analysis first)
- Bruning v. Pixler, 949 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1991) (Franks principle that a knowingly or recklessly false statement that is material to probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Kennedy, 131 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1997) (government officials’ false or misleading statements relied upon by affiant can support a Franks claim)