18 F.4th 909
6th Cir.2021Background
- In 1988 twin sisters and another woman were raped in Miami Township, Ohio; initial detectives Bailey and Fritz prepared supplemental reports that excluded Roger Gillispie as a suspect.
- A GM supervisor (Wolfe) urged suspicion of Gillispie; later Detective Matthew Moore was assigned, received earlier reports, then drafted replacement electronic reports that identified Gillispie and omitted the prior elimination rationale.
- Moore ran multiple photo lineups using a GM ID photo of Gillispie that differed in size/finish from fillers, told victims he had a suspect, and disclosed identifications to the sisters; victims identified Gillispie and he was charged and convicted.
- Gillispie later maintained alibi/alternative-suspect evidence; after years of postconviction litigation Ohio courts vacated his convictions based on nondisclosure and alternative-suspect issues, and the indictment was ultimately dismissed with prejudice when supplemental reports were not produced.
- Gillispie sued Moore under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging suppression of exculpatory evidence (Brady), unduly suggestive identification, fabrication of inculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution, and destruction of evidence; the district court denied Moore qualified immunity, allowing all claims to proceed.
- On interlocutory appeal the Sixth Circuit dismissed Moore’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Moore repeatedly disputed the district court’s factual findings instead of conceding the plaintiff’s version for purposes of the qualified-immunity appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal | Moore may not relitigate factual disputes on interlocutory review; appellate review limited to legal questions | Moore contends district court erred in factual findings and law not clearly established | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Moore failed to concede plaintiff’s facts and relied on disputed facts |
| Brady / suppression of exculpatory evidence | Moore withheld supplemental reports and material exculpatory information from prosecutors | Moore says he informed prosecutor that Gillispie had been ruled out and thus satisfied disclosure obligations | District court found genuine disputes; Sixth Circuit did not reach merits and dismissed appeal jurisdictionally (noted Brady law was clearly established) |
| Unduly suggestive identification | Photo lineups emphasized Gillispie (different size/finish, GM badge photo, advance comments to witnesses) producing risk of misidentification | Moore argues photo sizes/quality did not steer identifications and procedure was proper | District court found triable issues; appellate court declined to review merits due to jurisdictional bar |
| Fabrication of evidence / malicious prosecution | Moore fabricated or altered reports (including misstatements of witness interviews), influenced prosecution with false/misleading information | Moore argues fabricated material was not used at trial and law wasn’t clearly established that unadmitted fabrication violates rights | District court allowed claims to proceed; Sixth Circuit dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction (noting precedent that fabrication claims are cognizable) |
| Destruction / failure to preserve evidence | Moore failed to preserve or produced incomplete campground records and other exculpatory materials | Moore contests existence/materiality of destroyed evidence | District court found factual disputes precluding summary judgment; Sixth Circuit dismissed appellate review for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (limits interlocutory qualified-immunity review to legal questions)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (bars appeals challenging evidence-sufficiency factual determinations in qualified-immunity context)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (exception where record blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s version)
- Ouza v. City of Dearborn Heights, 969 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2020) (defendant must concede plaintiff’s facts on qualified-immunity appeal)
- Adams v. Blount Cnty., 946 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2020) (enforcing jurisdictional prerequisite to concede plaintiff’s factual view)
- Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 925 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 2019) (Brady and fabricated-evidence principles; police duty to disclose)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (due-process rule against unnecessarily suggestive identification)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (identification procedures that emphasize a suspect can be unconstitutional)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) (fabrication of evidence violates fundamental due process)