Ross v. City Of Oakland, 3:14-cv-00800

In April 2006 Ronald Ross was charged with attempted murder after Renardo Williams and other witnesses identified Ross from a six-person photo lineup; Ross was convicted at trial.
Williams later executed a declaration recanting his ID, claiming Sgt. Steven Lovell silently indicated which photo to pick and that Williams identified Ross as a favor; Williams later gave inconsistent statements and his availability is uncertain.
Alameda County prosecutors independently reviewed the evidence, interviewed witnesses (including Williams), and proceeded to charge and try Ross.
Ross obtained habeas relief in 2013 after the Alameda Superior Court vacated his conviction based on a trial witness’s perjury (Nikisha Stuart).
Ross sued Lovell and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution and Brady violations; defendants moved for summary judgment relying on lack of admissible evidence to support Ross’s claims.
The district court declined Ross’s Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery (finding lack of diligence) and excluded Williams’s recantation declaration as inadmissible and lacking foundation, then granted summary judgment for defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Williams’s recantation at summary judgment	Williams’s sworn declaration proves Lovell induced false ID; declaration admissible or Williams will be available	Declaration is hearsay, lacks foundation, and Ross cannot show Williams will testify; thus inadmissible	Court excluded the declaration: hearsay, insufficient foundation, and no proof declarant available
Rule 56(d) continuance for discovery	Needs more time to locate and depose Williams and obtain discovery about Lovell and Oakland training	Ross failed to diligently pursue discovery earlier; delay unexplained; defendants offered depositions	Denied: Ross showed lack of diligence and failed to identify specific facts to be obtained
Malicious prosecution against Lovell	Lovell induced prosecution by prompting Williams’s ID	Prosecutors independently reviewed evidence and exercised independent judgment (breaking causation chain)	Dismissed: prosecutors’ independent investigation defeats causation; Ross had no admissible evidence to rebut
Brady claim against Lovell	Lovell withheld/exculpatory/impeachment evidence (per Williams’s recantation)	No admissible evidence that Lovell suppressed favorable evidence or prejudiced trial	Dismissed: absent admissible evidence (recantation excluded), Ross cannot show suppression or prejudice

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine dispute standard)
Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978 (burden when moving party bears trial burden)
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (malicious prosecution elements under § 1983)
Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (malicious prosecution not limited to prosecutors)
Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (police liability in prosecution-related claims)
Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco, 570 F.3d 1078 (Brady claims against police investigators)
Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931 (Brady requires disclosure by police and prosecutors)
Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853 (prosecutor’s independent judgment can break causation)
McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129 (intervening prosecutorial decision as superseding cause)
Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (limits on admitting non-self-inculpatory statements under the statement-against-interest exception)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, 323 F.3d 767 (Rule 56(d) discovery principles)
Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822 (requirements for Rule 56(d) affidavits)
Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (Rule 56(d) relief only where party lacked opportunity to discover essential information)