Ronald Curtis v. W. Anthony
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4654
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Appellants Ron Curtis, Cedric Johnson, and Curvis Bickham sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; district court grants summary judgment for Appellees including Wright, the City of Houston, HPD officers, and Fort Bend County defendants.
- Pikett conducted dog-scent lineups for Curtis, Johnson, and Bickham; lineups were used to arrest, charge, and indict.
- Pikett, a Fort Bend County deputy, but volunteered with HPD; lineup procedure used six cans with suspect’s scent and five control scents, spaced to minimize cross-contamination.
- Texas caselaw prior to 2009 generally treated Pikett as an expert and admitted dog-scent lineup results as inculpatory evidence.
- Winfrey v. San Jacinto County (5th Cir. 2012) addressed similar issues and influenced the panel’s reasoning in this case.
- Facts show Curtis’s burglary-related arrests; later Johnson and Bickham were associated with murders investigated by HPD; scent lineups linked them to the crime scene samples, leading to initial probable cause, later undermined by exculpatory evidence and recantations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright/City/Fort Bend County officials are protected by qualified immunity. | Appellants argue Pikett’s lineups violated rights; municipal defendants knew or should have known lineup unreliability. | Appellees contend no policy liability and actions reasonable; Winfrey-distinguished analysis supports immunity. | Affirmed: qualified immunity and no Monell liability for those defendants. |
| Whether Stivers, Anthony, and Chappell violated clearly established rights by participating in Pikett's lineups. | Plaintiffs contend officers conspired or failed to intervene based on lineup fraud. | Defendants argue Winfrey distinguishes these claims; no independent constitutional violation shown. | Affirmed: no genuine dispute to defeat summary judgment; these officers entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether Pikett alone can be held liable for alleged lineup fraud. | Plaintiffs claim Pikett manipulated lineups; evidence suggests possible cuing. | Winfrey distinguished; independent corroboration exists; tapes do not prove fraud mandating reversal. | Affirmed: Pikett treated as qualified immunity issue distinguishable from Winfrey; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (qualified immunity requires clearly established rights at time of conduct)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (definitive rules for qualified immunity at motion stage)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) ( videotape can settle factual disputes for summary judgment)
- Winfrey v. San Jacinto County, 2012 WL 3062159 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished; distinguishable on narrow evidentiary grounds; rights issues same)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause requires probability, not certainty)
- Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2003) (knowledge of custom/policy essential for municipal liability)
- Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2005) (probable cause review de novo)