376 F. Supp. 3d 1160
D. Colo.2019Background
- In 1987 T.S. was assaulted and identified several possible attackers; she later (after a dream) identified Thomas Moses-El, who was arrested and convicted in 1988.
- Serology from the rape kit showed type O blood while Moses-El was type B; the lab director (Dr. Brown) testified the results were "inconclusive." Samples that might have permitted further DNA testing were preserved after 1993 requests but were approved for destruction in 1995 and destroyed in December 1995.
- Moses-El served 28 years; in 2012 L.C. Jackson confessed to the assault, and by 2015 the state court vacated Moses-El’s conviction. The DA retried Moses-El in 2017; he was acquitted.
- Moses-El sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting (inter alia) malicious prosecution, destruction of exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence, conspiracy, and Monell/supervisory liability against Denver, prosecutors, the lab director, police (including the estate of Detective Huff), and others.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court evaluated sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) and the qualified-immunity framing from Pearson/Iqbal and dismissed all claims for failure to state a constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (1988 & 2016 prosecutions) | Moses-El alleges defendants caused continued prosecution without probable cause and acted with malice (e.g., false testimony, withholding/excluding exculpatory evidence). | Defendants argue pleadings fail to show participation causally continuing prosecution or the requisite malicious state of mind. | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead facts plausibly showing defendants caused the prosecutions with malice; conclusory mens rea allegations insufficient. |
| Destruction of evidence (1995 samples) | Moses-El contends destruction of potentially exculpatory DNA evidence violated due process; defendants (Whitley, Huff/Estate) were responsible. | Defendants say conduct was negligent or mistaken, not intentional/reckless/bad faith. | Dismissed: pleadings do not plausibly allege intentional or reckless destruction; negligent conduct insufficient for § 1983 due-process claim. |
| Fabrication of evidence / Fair-trial claims (Jackson recantation, Howard recollection, Burke immunity) | Moses-El alleges prosecutors intimidated Jackson, induced Howard’s false recollection, and granted immunity to Burke to manufacture testimony. | Defendants say warnings about perjury were lawful; no factual allegations show prosecutors fabricated testimony or coerced false testimony; offering immunity is prosecutorial discretion. | Dismissed: allegations do not show fabrication or causation of false testimony; immunity to a witness without an allegation of false testimony cannot sustain a fabrication claim. |
| Municipal and supervisory liability (Denver; Morrissey) | Denver and Morrissey maintained customs/policies and failed to train/supervise, causing constitutional violations (evidence handling, prosecutorial misconduct). | Defendants argue there is no underlying constitutional violation pled and no Monell policy/custom or deliberate indifference alleged. | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to show an underlying constitutional violation and did not plead a municipal policy or deliberate indifference with the requisite factual support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity framework requires initial Rule 12(b)(6)-type evaluation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading mens rea and plausibility standard)
- Margheim v. Buljko, 855 F.3d 1077 (elements of § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim)
- Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (participation in initiation or continuation of prosecution)
- McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281 (effect of withheld evidence on probable cause analysis)
- Novitsky v. City of Aurora, 491 F.3d 1244 (distinguishing negligence from the mens rea needed for constitutional claims)
- Morgan v. Gertz, 166 F.3d 1307 (destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence claims)
- Newton v. City of New York, 779 F.3d 140 (culpability standards where evidence is destroyed)
- Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568 (requirement of bad faith or similar culpability for spoliation-based § 1983 claims)
- Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213 (conspiracy pleading requires facts showing agreement)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (municipal liability requires deliberate indifference/notice of pattern)
- Bekkem v. Wilkie, 915 F.3d 1258 (denial of leave to amend where prior amendments failed to cure defects)