Valdez v. Derrick
681 F. App'x 700
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Valdez rode in a pickup that police were pursuing; after a crash two occupants exchanged gunfire and fled; Valdez (unarmed) emerged with hands raised and lay down near the truck. He did not shoot or threaten officers.
- Officers shot Valdez (wounding his back and finger), transported him to a hospital, then arrested and jailed him; charges were later dismissed and he spent two months in jail.
- Valdez sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 for malicious prosecution, manufacture of inculpatory evidence, unreasonable seizure, false imprisonment, conspiracy, and excessive force; excessive-force claim is not at issue on appeal.
- The district court denied qualified immunity for five claims, finding no connection between Valdez and the shooting and that the officers may have conspired to cover up their conduct by pursuing charges against him.
- The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity for the non–use-of-force claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for arrests/prosecution claims | Valdez: officers lacked probable cause; he was an innocent bystander and they manufactured/withheld evidence to cover the shooting | Officers: objectively reasonable to arrest him as a vehicle occupant; qualified immunity protects mistaken but reasonable probable-cause decisions | Reversed: officers entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established that arresting an occupant in these circumstances violated rights |
| Whether Valdez plausibly alleged lack of probable cause | Valdez: facts show he posed no threat and was unconnected to crimes | Officers: Pringle and its progeny allow arrest of occupants based on common-enterprise suspicion | Held: allegations do not plausibly show absence of probable cause; officers could reasonably conclude probable cause existed |
| Whether allegations sufficiently plead officers’ personal participation in filing charges | Valdez: officers actively participated in arrest/prosecution and fabricated evidence | Officers: complaint lacks specific allegations tying individual officers to prosecutorial acts | Held: complaint fails to identify who did what; § 1983 requires particularized factual allegations |
| Whether conspiracy claim was plausibly pleaded | Valdez: officers conspired to cover up unlawful shooting by charging him | Officers: no specific agreement or concerted-action facts alleged | Held: conclusory allegations insufficient; conspiracy claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of qualified immunity at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards — accept well-pleaded facts and view in plaintiff’s favor)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (plausibility and necessity of specifying who did what in § 1983 complaints)
- Panagoulakos v. Yazzie, 741 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2013) (framework for resolving qualified immunity via the clearly-established prong)
- Callahan v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty., 806 F.3d 1022 (10th Cir. 2015) (applying Pringle to group arrests; law not clearly established beyond Pringle’s facts)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause to arrest vehicle occupants based on common enterprise theory)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (officers entitled to immunity when they reasonably but mistakenly conclude probable cause exists)
- Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998) (conspiracy claim requires specific facts showing agreement and concerted action)
- Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 2000) (conclusory conspiracy allegations cannot survive dismissal)