Riolordo Appling v. City of Los Angeles, 701 F. App'x 622

Background

June 1, 2009: a fight outside a Hollywood nightclub ended when the male instigator fled in a white BMW, running over Michael Weaver. Multiple witnesses gave varying descriptions; the scene was dark and witnesses were often intoxicated.
Detectives identified a woman companion who eventually named Riolordo Appling, a young Black man; detectives learned Appling had later received a traffic ticket while driving a white BMW.
Detectives assembled a six-photo spread including Appling; only one of seven witnesses made an unqualified identification.
Prosecutors charged Appling with assault, felony hit-and-run, and felony battery; he was arrested, convicted by a jury, and incarcerated for 11 months.
Post-conviction forensic inspection showed Appling’s BMW still had factory windows, while the car used in the crime had a shattered driver’s window; the trial court granted a new trial, prosecutor dismissed the charges, and Appling sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on most claims but reversed as to false arrest (facially invalid warrant) and judicial-deception claims and remanded for trial on those issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arrest warrant was facially invalid (false arrest)	Warrant lacked probable cause given unreliable identifications, disputed plate, dark/intoxicated conditions, and delay before photo spread	Affidavit/warrant contained sufficient facts to support probable cause; qualified immunity protects officers	Reversed summary judgment and qualified immunity; triable issues exist whether lack of probable cause was so obvious warrant was facially invalid
Judicial deception (false or reckless statements to obtain warrant)	Detectives stated BMW "was determined to have been driven by" Appling despite uncertainty about plate and failing to note only one certain ID	Statements were not deliberately false or recklessly made; no proof judge relied on any alleged deception	Reversed summary judgment and qualified immunity; triable issues whether detectives recklessly disregarded truth and whether judge would have issued warrant but for dishonesty
Malicious prosecution	Prosecution was instituted maliciously and without probable cause	No evidence of malice; probable cause or at least no deliberate misconduct shown	Affirmed dismissal; Appling failed to raise genuine issue on malice
Brady, fabrication, equal protection, Monell, §1985(3)	Police withheld exculpatory evidence (car mismatch), fabricated evidence, discriminated by race, municipal policy liability, and conspiratorial animus	Evidence does not show withheld material Brady evidence, fabrication, municipal custom, or class-based conspiracy; plaintiff knew some facts already	Affirmed summary judgment on these claims; insufficient evidence to sustain them

Key Cases Cited

Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and qualified immunity)
Chism v. Washington State, 661 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 2011) (warrant lacking probable cause on its face supports § 1983 false-arrest claim)
United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition of probable cause)
In re Walters, 543 P.2d 607 (Cal. 1975) (affidavit must recite competent facts to support strong suspicion)
KRL v. Estate of Moore, 512 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity lost when lack of probable cause is obvious)
Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (factors for reliability of eyewitness identification)
Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2008) (eyewitness ID reliability principles)
Grant v. City of Long Beach, 315 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2002) (eyewitness ID reliability and delay effects)
Butler v. Elle, 281 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements for judicial-deception claim)
Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1995) (loss of qualified immunity for deliberately or recklessly false affidavits)
Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2011) (malicious prosecution elements)
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (fabrication-of-evidence claim standard)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Raley v. Ylst, 470 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2006) (Brady requires undisclosed material evidence; known facts vitiate claim)
Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2000) (equal protection purposeful discrimination requirement)
Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2005) (conclusory bias assertions insufficient at summary judgment)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529 (9th Cir. 1992) (element of class-based animus for § 1985(3) claim)