Warnick v. Cooley
895 F.3d 746
| 10th Cir. | 2018Background
- Silvan Warnick, a Salt Lake County constable, was accused by his deputy (Daniel Herboldsheimer) of instructing falsification of an incident report after a courtroom pursuit; prosecutors charged Warnick (and his wife) twice with witness/evidence tampering.
- First set of charges: one count dismissed for unrelated reason; remaining counts voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for lack of probable cause (including charges against Warnick’s wife). A later refiled charging attempt was also dismissed for lack of probable cause.
- Warnick alleged prosecutors (Bradford Cooley, Ethan Rampton, Jeffrey Hall) and county investigators (Robin Wilkins, Mark Knighton) encouraged false statements, conducted an inadequate investigation, conspired to file charges knowing he was innocent, and that the prosecutions harmed his job and reputation.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (malicious prosecution and related theories), § 1985 conspiracy, and multiple Utah state tort claims; defendants moved to dismiss and the district court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held prosecutors immune from suit for filing charges under absolute prosecutorial immunity, and that Warnick’s remaining federal claims were insufficiently pleaded; he forfeited or inadequately briefed arguments on state-law claims and other theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutors are liable for filing charges despite lack of probable cause | Warnick: filing baseless charges violated his constitutional rights; lack of probable cause removes absolute immunity | Prosecutors: decision to file charges is an advocacy function entitled to absolute immunity even if probable cause is lacking | Held: Absolute prosecutorial immunity shields prosecutors for filing charges; claim barred |
| Whether prosecutors/investigators violated § 1983 by fabricating evidence or conducting an inadequate investigation | Warnick: prosecutors encouraged false info, fabricated evidence, and knowingly pursued charges | Defendants: allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual detail showing what was fabricated or how it was used to deprive due process | Held: Dismissed for failure to plead specific facts (no plausible allegation of fabrication and use causing constitutional harm) |
| Whether § 1985 conspiracy claim was viable | Warnick: defendants conspired to bring false charges | Defendants: no allegation of class-based animus required by § 1985(3) | Held: Dismissed; Warnick failed to allege motive based on protected class and waived meaningful challenge on appeal |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice / whether leave to amend was required | Warnick: should be allowed to amend complaint again (requested leave if claims dismissed) | Defendants/District Court: plaintiff delayed, failed to follow procedural rules, did not file proposed amended complaint; prior amendment failed to cure defects | Held: Denial of further leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutors’ advocacy functions; lack of probable cause not per se dispositive)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; legal conclusions must be supported by well-pleaded factual allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004) (fabrication of evidence can violate due process when it prejudices the accused)
- Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990) (prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for actions within the continuum of initiating and presenting a criminal case)
- Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (complaint must allege facts making misconduct plausible)
- Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (leave to amend should be freely given but is discretionary)