Moore v. Hartman
396 U.S. App. D.C. 28
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Moore alleges six USPS Postal Inspectors retaliated against him for public criticism of the USPS and its personnel, leading to his criminal prosecution.
- Moore previously led Recognition Equipment Inc. (REI) which lobbied against ZIP+4 codes and was involved with a public relations firm; USPS ultimately did not purchase REI’s scanners.
- GAI (Gnau and Associates) officials were implicated in a kickback scheme with Voss; several GAI members and Voss pleaded guilty with immunity cooperation.
- Indictment and trial history: Moore and REI officers were charged in 1988; government case survived the initial trial but resulted in acquittal at the close of the government’s case in 1989.
- Moore filed a Bivens action in 1991 alleging First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment violations and a separate FTCA malicious prosecution claim, which were consolidated; only the Bivens retaliatory inducement to prosecution claim remains on appeal.
- On remand, the district court in 2010 denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the government lacked probable cause to prosecute Moore; the Postal Inspectors appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review fact-based denial of summary judgment | Moore argues immediate appeal is proper for the denial of qualified immunity on disputed facts. | The appeal cannot review fact-based determinations at the qualified-immunity stage. | Dismissed for lack of interlocutory-review jurisdiction on disputed facts. |
| Whether arguable probable cause applies to First Amendment retaliatory inducement to prosecution | Arguable probable cause should provide a defense to the causation element. | Arguable probable cause applies similarly to Fourth Amendment claims and could shield conduct. | Arguable probable cause does not apply; absence of probable cause is not an element of the First Amendment right, but must be pleaded as causation in this specific claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Hartman, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (no-probable-cause element required in retaliatory-prosecution claim as a matter of law)
- Moore v. Hartman, 571 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (remand on sufficient evidence to rebut presumptive probable cause; standard for causation in Moore IV framework)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (immediacy and scope of review for qualified-immunity denial at interlocutory stage)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (final decision rule; limits on review of fact-intensive issues at qualified-immunity stage)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (pleading standard; limits on considering extraneous materials outside complaint)