494 F.Supp.3d 269
D. Md.2020Background
- 1994 Baltimore homicide: lead detectives Robert Patton and Frank Barlow investigated; witnesses included Diane Bailey, her daughter Keisha Thompson, eyewitness Sandra Jackson, teen Marcus King, and Daniel Ellison. Plaintiffs Kenneth McPherson and Eric Simmons were arrested in 1994 and convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to murder; they were exonerated and had their convictions vacated in 2019.
- Plaintiffs allege Patton and Barlow (and other BPD officers) fabricated evidence, coerced Marcus King, and suppressed exculpatory evidence (e.g., Jackson’s descriptions and notes of Ellison’s interview) to secure indictments and convictions.
- Plaintiffs sued the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) and five named detectives (Patton, Dave Neverdon, Barlow, Richard Garvey, and “Detective Gilbert”) asserting federal § 1983 claims (Brady, fabrication, malicious prosecution, unlawful detention, failure to intervene, conspiracy, Monell) and several state-law claims, plus an indemnification claim against BPD.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds: insufficient pleading (especially group pleading), qualified immunity, statute of limitations, BPD sovereign immunity, and prematurity of indemnification claim.
- Court granted the motion as to Neverdon, Garvey, and Gilbert for insufficient individualized allegations; denied the motion as to Patton and Barlow (claims for Brady, fabrication/substantive due process, malicious prosecution, failure to intervene, unlawful detention, conspiracy, IIED, Maryland constitutional claim survive); denied BPD’s motion (indemnification claim allowed to proceed; BPD not entitled to sovereign immunity at this stage).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of allegations as to Neverdon, Garvey, Gilbert | Group pleading and references to "BPD Officer Defendants" sufficiently tie them to misconduct | Allegations are generic; no specific acts tied to these officers | Dismissed without prejudice as to those three for insufficient individualized allegations |
| Brady / suppression of exculpatory evidence (substantive due process) | Patton and Barlow suppressed Jackson’s descriptions, identity of Jackson’s niece, and notes of Ellison’s interview; bad faith can be inferred | Defendants dispute disclosure, materiality, and bad faith; factual disputes exist | Survives against Patton and Barlow; plausible Brady claim at pleading stage |
| Fabrication of evidence / coerced statements (substantive due process) | Officers coerced Marcus King and directed Bailey/Thompson to make false IDs, fabricating evidence that deprived liberty | Defendants argue reliability and that cross‑examination addressed any issues; dispute over falsity | Survives against Patton and Barlow; plausible fabrication claim at pleading stage |
| Malicious prosecution / probable cause | Probable cause was lacking because it rested on knowingly fabricated identifications and statements | Identifications provided probable cause for arrest and prosecution | Survives against Patton and Barlow; factual dispute inappropriate for dismissal |
| Statute of limitations / accrual for unlawful detention | Accrual occurs when detention ends (release/vacatur in 2019), so suit timely | Accrual should be earlier (e.g., at conviction or end of pretrial detention) | Court adopts accrual at release (post‑vacatur), so claims are timely |
| Monell, indemnification, and BPD sovereign immunity | BPD liable for policies/failure to train; indemnification claim may be pled now to avoid redundant litigation | BPD argues indemnification premature and asserts sovereign immunity to § 1983 claims | Indemnification claim not dismissed as premature; BPD not entitled to sovereign immunity at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishing prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 532 U.S. 833 (substantive due process requires conduct that "shocks the conscience")
- Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274 (4th Cir.) (fabrication of evidence can violate due process)
- Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir.) (elements and bad‑faith inference for Brady claims against police)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (accrual question for unlawful pretrial detention claims; claim can continue after initiation of legal process)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§ 1983 claim that would imply invalidity of conviction barred until conviction reversed)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (a § 1983 false‑arrest claim accrues when the detention ends)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly to pleadings)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)