Randall Mills v. Weakley Barnard

jus are no circumstances There tifying supple consideration Fontana’s Among other things,

mental brief here. reasonable-mistake-of-age

Fontana’s de

fense his conviction not his attacks

sentence,- unequivocally and he waived

“any right appeal -to his conviction” his

plea agreement. waiver enforce Such long knowingly

able so made as was Toth, United States

voluntarily, 2012), was the plea colloquy,

case Fontana’s here. At waiver, explained

district court acknowledged

Fontana he understood.

Furthermore, pro se brief does Fontana’s waiver, why address made voluntarily, or

knowingly and even address

the issue at all. waiver above,

For the reasons set forth.

judgment of court is the district affirmed Fontana’s motion file supplemen- pro

tal se brief is denied. MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Randall BARNARD,

Weakley E. al., Defendants,

et Jenkins,

Sharon D. individual and capacities agent

official an of the Investigation,

Tennessee Bureau

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-6597 of Appeals,

United States Court Circuit.

Sixth

Argued: June August

Decided and Filed:

Rehearing En Banc Denied.

October 2017* * grant, Judge rehearing participation recused in this Griffin for the herself from rul- ing. Judge reasons dissent. stated in Stranch Wall, J. BRAN-

ARGUED: Michael STETTER, JENNINGS, STRANCH & Tennessee, PLLC, Nashville, Appel- for Jordan, Jennifer, OF THE Her boy- OFFICE sister lant. Dawn her sister’s GENERAL, friend, Hodge, TENNESSEE ATTORNEY Robert realized that C.M. Nashville, Tennessee, Appellee. for ON missing and searched the house Wall, J. G. neighborhood BRIEF: Michael James Upon her. their for return BRANSTETTER, III, house, Stanch sitting the two found C.M. JENNINGS, PLLC, & Nash- STRANCH doorstep, front disoriented. When Tennessee, ville, Appellant. Dawn Jor- been, she had initially asked where C.M. dan, had, OF THE TENNESSEE OFFICE told her sister she been Nashville, GENERAL,- Ten- ATTORNEY .changed backyard story but her con- when nessee, Appellee. fact fronted with the that Jennifer backyard. Robert searched the C.M. BOGGS, GRIFFIN, and Before: that she then had been at the house stated WHITE, Judges. Circuit Mills, neighbor, her Randall next-door marijuana smoked he had BOGGS, J., opinion delivered the her.. Jennifer went fondled and Robert WHITE, J., joined. in which Mills’s home and him confronted GRIFFIN, 487-90), (pp. J. delivered sons, two accusing front of his him dissenting separate opinion. drugs providing sexually assaulting to and Lewisburg, Tennessee, police C.M. The OPINION began investigation, were informed'and an BOGGS, Judge, Circuit during alleged C.M. also Mills which questions: main This suit involves three provided days her with Valiúm. A into few (1) suffi- whether Randall Mills -Mills over investigation, the turned himself ciently pleaded prose- claim for malicious custody of law the enforcement. 1988; (2) § cution U.S.C. whether under sufficiently for fabri- pleaded 21, 1999,1 Mills a claim for July On Mills was indicted 1988; § cation of evidence under oral a mi- digital sexual contact and. with Brady sufficiently Mills pleaded whether exchange of a controlled nor and casual Mills claim. The district court Mills, According, August found substance. on granted so had not pleaded defendant 16,1999, Lewisburg Department the Police on motion to Jenkins’s dismiss Sharon report from the received a Tennessee Bu- claims. We those reverse (“TBI”) Investigation that semen reau issues, com- holding on all three An had been found C.M.’s underwear. to consti- plaint, requisite contains the facts .police department then from the officer all tute viable on counts. C.M., spoke explained.that and C.M. engaged in Mills had sexual intercourse I reported with her but she had get afraid 15, 1999, because she was that she would evening On the of March result, 18,1999, August As a on twelve-year-old C.M. out slipped trouble. grand jury indicted Mills once more and house while her mother town. was out may Although proceedings take the in- courts ... notice of states-that courts, was dictment returned March both within other and without parties acknowledge was in- that Mills both judicial system, proceedings if those federal recognize July may dicted 1999. We at-issue.”) relation to matters have direct through judicial the actual date notice Black, (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 681 document. See United States v. 2007)). 2012) (“Appellate Project, sent the with the charge rape by of a er Innocence child added DNA and underwear preserved penetration. penile private to a DNA labora- from Mills’s trial day, County the Marshall That same Serological Research Institute tory, granted an Court order Circuit (“SERI”). analysts unable The SERI were samples from taking of saliva and blood portions exact of the under- to retest Jenkins was the DNA ana- Mills. Sharon because, ac- Jenkins had used wear that assigned TBI to the evi- lyst review (an Gary expert Harmor cording to examining After Mills’s case. dence SERI), “gone.” samples Addi- those were underwear, there Jenkins stated that samples own had biode- tionally, Mills’s of DNA found: and a two sources C.M. samples to graded, provided he new contributor, profile male whose DNA was tests, In Harmor performing SERI. Mills. Jenkins testified at consistent with sample portion from a took one of an trial that the likelihood unrelated sample to the adjacent taken underwear having the same Caucasian individual samples from and three other 1 in profile was and that there on C.M.’s different locations underwear. only a 0.3% chance that the DNA Using analysis techniques as the “same belonged to a Caucasian male other than Jenkins, Harmor concluded by” those used ¶¶46, 63.2 also Complaint Mills. semen from that the contained underwear analysis that her testified under- male contributors and two different yielded “inconclusive data”: wear twelve contributors Mills. neither of those she in- thirteen markers tested were According complaint, conclusive. to the May petition filled a reports ini- toxicology contradicted C.M.’s writ of coram nobis before state error claim that taken tial she had Valium evidentiary hearings, the Mar- court. After marijuana. smoked that Mills had post-convic- shall Circuit Court on County on granted tion Mills a new trial review child, jury of of a rape A convicted Mills 26, January rape-of-a-child charge on the battery, aggravated sexual and casual ex- 2011, remaining on relief but denied substance, change of a controlled and he 2011, In af- charges. April appealed. Mills twenty years in sentenced was to.serve having years prison, eleven in ter served unsuccessfully appealed his prison. Mills in ex- time Mills was released served in convictions state and later sent a a change signing release claims corpus to petition for a writ habeas In appeal pending. Novem- while was of the Federal Public Defender for Office 2013, of Criminal the Tennessee Court District of ber the Middle Tennessee. Defender, convic- working togeth- Appeals all Mills’s overturned Federal Public post-conviction opinion on Jenkins’s complaint argues testimo We that Jen- 2. note that ny, provided 1 in the correct statement kins stated "there was a 290 chance having any chance of “an unrelated individual the semen came Caucasian Mr, popu profile ... in the Caucasian same DNA other than Mills” and that "there was 290,” Barnard, only 1 in Mills v. No. a the DNA she lation was chance that 0.3% 5819787, 1:14-CV-00150, at *4 analyzed belonged 2016 WL to Caucasian male other 2016) 30, statements, (M.D. if-made, (quoting Sept. Mills v. These Tenn. than Mr. Mills.” M2011-00620-CCA-R3-PC, State, 2013 flatly be No. would untrue. correct statement: 6069276, (Tenn. App. every 1 in WL at *24 Crim. Nov. be that white males 290 however, 19, 2013)), thus, stage, no we have for ex- At would have such a marker and 29,000 males, ample, knowledge of was Jenkins's city in a what white marker, com In- other than the made such men would have same deed, court, plaint. quoting the district the state- tions, finding that DNA the new evidence were time barred limita- statute question testimony called into the critical tions; Mills’s for money claims damages State, of C.M. trial. Mills v. 2013 WL against Jenkins, Gwyn, and Barnard were 6069276, at *26. Mills filed Amendment; barred the Eleventh indictment, motion to dismiss the and the Gwyn protected by prosecu- absolute responded prosequi State with a nolle mo- torial immunity; probable cause existed County tion. The Circuit Court Marshall and therefore defeated Mills’s malicious- April a nolle prosequi entered order prosecution defendants; against any Brady claim failed because the new findings DNA 19, were based on “material On November Mills filed suit test; §§ did have” and the under U.S.C. and 1985 other constitutional the United District for the claims were insuffi- States Court action, 12(b)(6) ciently pleaded District In his to Middle Tennessee. survive a Rule Weakley he named as motion. Mills timely appealed defendants Barnard the district (the Attorney Assistant District judgment “only General court’s insofar as [it] dis- .., for the Tennessee Seventeenth Judicial against missed the claims Jenkins” District, including County), Marshall Jen only in capacity. Appel- individual (the kins TBI analyst), and Beth lant’s Br. 13. (a police investigator

Rhoton with the Lewisburg Police in both Department) II capacities; their individual and official (the TBI) Gwyn Mark Director of grant We de novo the examine capacity; County; his official 12(b)(6) Marshall to motion dismiss under Rule City of Lewisburg. Mills claimed that: of. Federal Rules Civil Procedure. (1) subjected prosecu he to Lucarelli, malicious 395- Bickerstaff cover-up tion and “a conspiracy In order to defeat Fourth, truth” in contravention dismiss, motion to must “al Thirteenth, Amendments; Fourteenth lege[] facts that ‘state a claim relief (2) Barnard, Jenkins, and Rhoton con that, plausible on its if face’ and spired deprive of his constitutional true, accepted sufficient ‘raise a rights; City Lewisburg and Mar right speculative relief above the lev ” County shall ratified and condoned Handy-Clay City Memphis, el.’ unconstitutional actions taken 2012) Bell (quoting (4) Mills; falsely and and Jenkins Barnard Corp. Atl. Twombly, v. 550 U.S. imprisoned Mills in of violation Tennessee 570, 1955, 929 127 S.Ct. 167 L.Ed.2d state law. The district court construed (2007)). complaint, In con reviewing a we Barnard, Jenkins, Mills’s assertion that “in light strue it most to the favorable the Rhoton “knowingly manufactured false true, plaintiff, accept its as inculpatory him against sup evidence” draw all reasonable favor inferences pressed “exonerating exculpatory evi Directv, Treesh, plaintiff.” the Inc. v. 487 Brady Mary dence” as a claim v. under (6th 2007). 471, F.3d Cir. 476 land, 83, 1194, 373 U.S. 83 S.Ct. 10 (1963). 215 L.Ed.2d After all defendants A. Malicious Prosecution suit, to dismiss Mills’s moved the Anderson, granted In 625 Sykes the motions. The court de v. F.3d (6th 2010), termined that 294 Fourth Amendment Cir. we set out ele false-imprisonment malicious-prosecution false-arrest and of a claims ments un- 480 indictment, however, case, con Those ele In this

der the Fourth Amendment. probable (1) prosecution cause clusively a criminal determines “that ments detention, at least for be against and that existed Mills’s initiated influence[d], See, ‘ma[d]e, e.g., v. DNA Sanders par fore the test. the defendant (6th 2017), Jones, 721, prosecute’”; Cir. 728 ticipate[d] in decision 845 F.3d (Mar. (2) probable 20, reh’g “that was a lack there amended on denial of (3) prosecution”; 2017). § criminal of “malicious cause for the But 1983 version “that, legal proceed of a consequence a institu prosecution” is not limited ‘as ‘deprivation a plaintiff suffered ing,’ support it can also a proceedings; tion .,. seizure”; from the liberty’ apart initial detention- without claim for “continued (4) proceeding must criminal (quoting “the probable Id. 728 cause.” n.4 plaintiffs Louisville, favor.” 725, have been resolved Gregory City 444 F.3d v. (alterations in original) (6th 2006)); 625 Rehberg at 308-09 F.3d see also v. 749-50 Cir. DeSoto, 227, (first v. 489 F.3d quoting Paulk, Fox 132 S.Ct. 566 U.S. 2007), (6th quoting then Johnson (describing poten Cir. 237 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (3d 2007)). Knorr, Cir. F.3d 81 malicious-prosecution § v. 477 tial claims as 1983 dispute appears to be no There “concerning initiation or maintenance liberty added)); and that deprivation of (emphasis suffered a prosecution” of a cf. eventually resolved proceeding Cty. 150 Gray Cuyahoga Dep’t, v. Sheriff’s favor, us to the first leaving Cir.) resolve (6th a (permitting F.3d suit liberty second elements. a deprivation in case claiming arrest based a identity mistaken after its decision on district court rested merely compar where description, similar superseding indictment fact proba ing mug have dissolved shots would any analysis before was returned cause), amended denial opinion ble therefore, and, performed had been (6th reh’g, Cir. 160 F.3d 276 probable prosecution cause Mills’s by the conclusively established been of an indictment existence -coming to this grand-jury indictment. always wards off a talisman that thus conclusion, district court cited Webb Instead, malicious-prosecution claim. “even States, F.3d 647 United proba if establishes independent evidence 2015), general rule that which stated suspect, it still against ble cause indictment, upon fair its finding “the of an officers be unlawful law-enforcement jury, face, grand by properly constituted strengthen fabricate order the existence conclusively determines Webb, suspect.” the case (quoting probable cause.” Id. at recently King held We Wright, Barnes v. 2017), Harwood, 2006)). quite court was The district acts pre-indictment nontestimonial however, is, right, general There rule. to the prosecution of material rule, to this applicable an exception presumption plaintiff could rebut case, can demon- probable where cause be by grand-jury a probable cause established intentional, on know- strated to be based excep For this at 587-88. indictment. Id. ing, or reckless falsehood. transgressing officer must apply, tion to recklessly” or “knowingly of malicious acted prototypical case have making that were materi an official who fabri false statements prosecution involves (quoting at wrongful prosecution. to Id. al the that leads cates the evidence case, Webb, In where person. of an innocent 789 F.3d at arrest indictment report linchpin the DNA the of the was withheld the of’ existence nonmatching cause, probable the fact prosecution’s or, of hairs had been recovered alternative, trump not pre-existing-indictment does the withheld the knowledge that him, complaint’s allegations fact that —if none of the the hairs matched' -Ibid. This true, taken allegation we must take them— held the that “had unlawfully Katz not exculpatory termed “in- suppressed exculpato evidence .,. information[,] ry “despite clear probable conclusive” evidence that cause CM’s Plaintiffs detention underwear contained semen from continued would have destroyed” been multiple was men not Mr. sufficient [were] Mills.” defeat motion for summary judgment by Katz. Id. assumption Relieved the the at It 750. stands to reason that Mills’s grand-jury indictment resolves issue allegation similar is sufficient to defeat a cause, probable quickly perceives one how motion to dismiss. prosecution’s reliant case on Jen- At argument, oral Jenkins contended story kins’s results. C.M.’s- initial had that Gregory distinguishable is times, because changed multiple including an esca- hairs Gregory’s were tested before indict lation from battery rape. sexual Her ments ensuing and so tainted the indict given claim that Mills had her Valium was report ments. But the lab Gregory had by contradicted her toxicology report, and not been presented grand jury; to' the events, description which included thus, grand jury’s finding probable smoking marijuana cigarettes Mills several cause on the report. was not based false window, tossing one out Louisville, v. No. Gregory City 3:01-cv- supported physical (according evidence 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *6 complaint, Mills’s toxicology (W.D. 29, 2004).Rather, Ky. Mar. the inde no marijuana showed trace sys- pendently probable determined cause that tem, closed, no the window was and mari- kept Gregory detained was bolstered juana was in or found outside Mills’s important of the omission home). (and others’) Given this court’s at the scene hairs did recovered basing wariness about probable cause sole- match Gregory’s. report, true With child, ly Wesley of a see probable crumpled. here, Just cause so Campbell, withholding of exculpatory evi where 2016), the revelation of evidence Mills up independent propped dence deter had as the source of been excluded C,M.’s probable cause for Mills’s on mination found in would have col- underwear going probable also detention. cause That lapsed prosecution’s foundations of face stand in the of the could not true (at probable cause least based ac- DNA results. provided count complaint). Mills’s sufficiently Mills’s well-plead- sufficiently pleaded also Mills has toed establish the element there was knowing that Jenkins acted in a or reck probable prosecu- a lack of for the cause sure, plain less manner. To be state following analysis. tion Jenkins’s DNA “intentionally, ment mali Gregory, confirms this un ... reckless ciously, disregard” [or] derstanding subjected of the prose of malicious prosecution law malicious cution. Gregory, -standing the evidence insufficient consisted on its own. Ash See hairs recovered the scene rather than Iqbal, U.S. S.Ct. croft (“[T]he Gregory DNA. Id. claimed that 173 L.Ed.2d 868 Fed Katz, expert, a forensic “knowingly eral do not courts to require Rules credit conclusory

complaint’s com/news/special-reports/agents-secrets/ statements without context.”). (describing factual But the reference to its articlel7704160.html the North by provided com facts and context Mills’s Investigation “often Carolina Bureau plaint enough permit substance us offer to forcing] advocates, analysts to become in that” to inference “draw the reasonable step prosecutors, lock and police with recklessly. or knowingly Id. Jenkins acted shaping to deliver a con evidence needed According at 1937. to the S.Ct. viction”). to state more Mills had than in complaint, the DNA found the under did so conclusion that “Jenkins intentional Mills,” Mr. “clearly excluded but wear ly.” by including complaint But in the pur deliberately “such evidence was and clearly facts that the DNA results The moti posefully withheld” Jenkins. analysis exonerating under used misidentifying vation the DNA was behind Jenkins, making that Jenkins an denied allegedly support “to maintain in that the incrimi analysis, error her allega guilty support verdict.”3 of his nating opposite provided to conclusion misconduct, Mills tions of intentional in prosecutors, complaint provides suf Mills’s “she did cluded Jenkins’s support ficient to a plausi factual context in analysis make a mistake and re intentionally ble that Jenkins falsi port.” clearly If the DNA exonerated report. fied the mistake, not make then Jenkins did intentionally it that she mis- plausible Turning to the final element in support the DNA order to identifíed prosecution malicious Jenkins dis prosecution. cases have known Such been “ma[d]e, putes, it that Jenkins is clear Lazar, Kay to How a Chemist occur. See influencefd], participate^ deci Lab’s Safeguards, Circumvented Her Bos. Sykes, prosecute.” sion F.3d at 308 Globe, 30, 2012, https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/ Sept. (alterations (quoting Fox, original) in 2012/09/29/how-chemist-drug 237), Gregory, As noted “foren -lab-scandal-circumvented- investigatory sic in an examiners act fash safeguards/uR3jTdvw4sWe3 they interpret ion when document gLjOm2GnO/story.html (recounting a Mas physical Gregory, 444 evidence.” chemist’s illicit practice sachusetts forensic Investigators are deemed to par 740. have intentionally contaminating samples ticipated where prosecution in a “misstate drugs with to make them positive); test ments and Neff, investigato falsehoods Joseph [their] Mandy Locke & Part 3: Wit ry ultimately ... influenced [a ness Prosecution: materials Loyal Lab Observer, plaintiffs] Sykes, Enforcement, The News continued detention.” Law & Aug. http://www.newsobserver. findings F.3d at clearly 316. Jenkins’s argument, At oral semen on hands as an maintained their alternative of this context statement is better under- allegation Mills's had mischarac- involving her stood as actions after Mills’s Thus, terized when com- results. prosecution guilty verdict. read- But that plaint "Jenkins had states that misidentifled ing, being addition inconsistent with the segments sup- Mills’s DNA in order of Mr. practice construing complaint and all verdict,” guilty port and maintain the it is light reasonable inferences "in the fa- most theory why apposition to an altérnate plaintiff,” vorable to the is not one the best original report with was consistent Mills’s Directv, here. 487 F.3d at 476. The DNA, solely testimony. Jenkins’s later explains that Barnard a "bizarre created Therefore, alleged provides an motivation hypothetical pair where scenario” of un- why knowingly falsify Jenkins would identified men had handled the underwear facility report. while it was at the state in Mills’s deten played Op. role continued at 489. regard With to the dissent’s 316-17; Gregory, claim, id. at tion. See F.3d first while it is true the exis- 749-50; County, see also Jones v. Clark of exonerating tence information is the 16-6281, Fed.Appx. claims, (and No. 2017 WL report source Mills’s 25, 2017). May it) Accord what was omitted from is the basis of ingly, pleaded Jenkins’s actions—as participation Jenkins’s influence in the and —were participation constitute sufficient to prosecute. According decision to the of Mills. continued detention complaint, Jenkins found “two distinct analyzed stains” pre- both. Jenkins Finally, argues that Mills pared a report based on the results of her permitted upon Greg should not be to rely testing, report prose- and sent that to the ory, as did not cite it as the of his he basis cutor. only to “data” in the reference argument probable for lack of cause. An complaint is that “Jenkins claimed ... argument appeal is not forfeited be semen other than one [the] she found particular authority cause a or strain to be with consistent Mr. Mills’s DNA below, argument was not raised contained inconclusive data.” While inart- long as issue itself properly was raised. ful, language imply any does not dis- Co., See Leonor v. Provident & Acc. Life tinction between raw “data” Jenkins’s 2015); 790 F.3d see also report that no conclusion could be drawn Charles, United States v. any Instead, physical other material. 2016) (“The failure cite complaint adequately alleges that the authority point additional does not a (1) inculpating fabricated results make....”). argued forfeiture Mills had Mills, specifically, that Mills’s DNA was the victim’s below that statements “[w]hile consistent with the from C.M.’s un- gave probable Jenkins’s co-Defendants (2) not; derwear it was when withheld Plaintiff, preliminarily investigate cause to by wrongly stating exculpatory evidence it was Jenkins’s decision to present sci inconclusive, other DNA results were entifically unsupportable opinion as fact in fact results defini- when some those so that corroborated version tively clearly Especially exclude Mills. description victim’s events that light Jenkins’s statement she proceeding caused the criminal to ad not, mistaken, been, ” was and had never beyond an investigation.... vance This complaint alleges that these adequately argument was sufficient to raise the issue knowing, untruths were that, the initial despite inde existence cause, pendent probable analysis Jenkins’s states, Secondly, the or at least dissent proceedings. the cause continued did, fact, strongly implies, “Jenkins not precluded Mills is from supplementing provide prosecutor,” to the data [raw] argument legal further with citation on claim that complaint’s based appeal. prosecutor presented “never [defense states analysis any The dissent Jenkins’ counsel] our Defendant pieces pre- Op. “conflates two Dissent evidence—the test results.” ‘inconclusive’ ¶49. 490; liminary DNA data if Complaint final But even Mills’s Jenkins’[s] report interpreting that data” and that if should prosecutor is that preliminary results, only impli- “‘clearly given data excluded have him Mills,’ only alleges Mr. ... prosecutor give cation is that the did incorrect, data), knowingly not that she raw (conceivably the “results” recklessly findings.” any prosecutor falsified her Dissent raw data. ever had 19, 2014, pros- complaint that is no evidence the on November well

Because there data, one-year any raw DNA or within the limit. had ecutor ever have been able prosecutor the that Jenkins also contends data even if he interpret that raw did insufficiently pleaded Mills and failed to alleged misrepresen- it, it have is Jenkins’s withholding-of-evi state fabrication and material. tations In dence claims. order to survive motion 12(b)(6), to dismiss Rule a complaint under complaint alleges Because Mills’s must plead plausi make a claim and facts intentionally report falsified Jenkins’s showing the bly is entitled to and that the to his prosecution material 679, Iqbal, relief. See 129 S.Ct. 556 U.S. otherwise provided lacking falsities therein sufficient, Merely pleading 1937. facts is cause, along with the probable not enough, id. 129 see S.Ct. deprived liberty of he been had 1937, generous are in but their in courts eventually proceeding had the criminal terpretation identify of complaint favor, sufficiently he resolved been long provides causes of actions so it fair as .prosecution claim malicious pleaded a claim, notice to the defendant the see § 42 1983. The district under U.S.C. court 344, Cross, Marie Am. Red 364 holding that the was in error indictment (6th 2014); Dodson, Cir. Fisher v. 451 Fed. conclusively probable issue resolved 2011). 500, Appx. 501-02 ad We Accordingly, we reverse the cause. district in turn. dress each claim grant court’s motion to dismiss with claim, respect malicious-prosecution Fabrication-of-Evidence 1. Claim. The basis a fabrication-of-evi § allegation dence under claim is an Fabricating B. Evidence and “knowingly that a defendant ev fabricated Withholding of Evidence plaintiff], there idence [a [that] matter, As an initial Jenkins ar ais the false reasonable likelihood gues that both judgment the fabrication have and with evidence could affected Florence, holding-of-evidence of the jury.” City barred Stemler v. 1997). the statute of limitations. She contends The period complaint that the statute-of-limitations not began many does state so words to run when rape the initial to maintain a “fabrication-of- charge seeks allege on 2011. April does, however, dismissed claim. It Because the evidenee” § period “subjected] statute-of-limitations 1983 that to ... Mr. Mills law, wrongful suits state ... determined the rele conviction Mr. violation vant period rights' limitations suit is one guaranteed Mills’s Constitutional 28-3-104(a); § § year. See Tenn. [ Code Ann. under 42 Fourth ]1983 U.S.C. Co., Jackson v. Richards Med. In support F.2d and Fourteenth Amendments.” explained allegation, As in of charged King, period begin the limitations does with the mis “manufacture and intentional inculpa- representation run while criminal false knowingly indictment evidence,” charges outstanding. King, tory presentation same as well Accordingly, F.3d at report.” statute of an “inaccurate” and 579. “[un]true essence, begin complaint alleges limitations to run until Jen did prosecution’s grant prosequi report of the nolle kins and data to make falsified April appear con motion which terminated the DNA the-underwear (cid:127) proceeding. criminal Mills filed his Mills’s own. sistent alleges that Brady further fabrication-of-evidence claim). violation plausi Mills has prevented Mills from stated falsity of the ble claim that the elements of a “be[ing] prove likely that CM had satisfies able claim. fabrication-of-evidence engaged in sexual with two other relations ... males and that she lied about her Withholding Evidence. her, virginity raping Mr. Mills as well as addressed withhold her, fondling providing her with mari- ing-of-evidence directly. claim more It cor addition, juana.” complaint alleges the rectly observed that the test for such a was basis of report that the DNA the is Brady Maryland, derived eliciting guilty Barnard’s in ver- success 373 U.S. 83 10 215 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d allegations All of taken as dicts. these are (1963). explained by Supreme As the Court are true and reasonable inferences all 419, 115 Kyles Whitley, in 514 U.S. S.Ct. stage in this of the drawn favor Mills at (1995), 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 violation of Inc., Directv, at proceedings. 487 476. F.3d process due sup results where the State These factual sufficient presses favorable to a evidence defendant show the of material be creation known guilt that is his or pun material to either judgment that had effect false an the ishment and of a nature that would have Moreover, jury. knowing require- the the probability changing had a reasonable ment of fabrication-of-evidence claims is proceeding. result of the See id. at in satisfied for the same reason as 432-33, 115 in S.Ct. 1555. This court Mol malicious-prosecution according claim: Warren, City dowan v. 351 complaint, DNA results that were (2009), obligation from pros that extended provided by unmistakably were Jenkins to police ecutors officers- and confirmed exonerating report chose to but Jenkins experts that it forensic such as the reached they Mills’s lia- were consistent with 381, 397; in see Gregory. one Id. at also bility in support prosecution’s order to Gregory, 444 at 744. guilty case and a verdict. claim, Brady The source of Mills’s The court the fabrica district combined claim, distinguished from fabrication withholding tion claim and the claim into that there additional DNA evi- existed one, In Gregory, in this but was error. dence—classified “inconclu- analyzed separately court claims exculpatory.4 sive”—that in fact The was expert forensic withheld evidence respon- complaint alleges that was Grego expert fabricated evidence. of exonerating suppression sible “the ry, 444 This F.3d at 744-45. result is sensi exculpatory evidence, including, but. not ble, elements, to, as the claims have different clearly limited the DNA evidence notably, sup most one involves was as ‘in- excluded Mr. but labeled ” pression of the oth favorable evidence and claims evi- conclusive.’ It further that the damaging exculpatory,” er the actually manufacture evidence. but-Jen- dence “was (citing favorably “incomplete” report See id. Atkins v. kins’s and that a was Riverside, County Fed.Appx. full have DNA report proven 2005), “actually conclusive- permitted C.M.’s 505-06 which underwear was ly These simultaneously map someone else’s DNA.” pursue both clear, wrong ing DNA that the To be false that stated withholding exonerating suppression claim is the evi- with Mills’s the underwear was consistent ' n ' dence did the DNA results not match. DNA. wrong produc- claim is fabrication States, v. United Brady dispute. Friedman for a viola- able requirements onto the 1991). 259, 261 Courts (1) to a favorable tion: defendant Rule (results conclusively judicial Mills as notice excluded should take not DNA); (2) sup- subject to that was of the truth of matters stage contributor dispute have had a reason- earlier and would contained pressed;. reasonable Ins., changing the result v. Jewelers probability See Mut. able cases. Stafford (the corroboration of G.M.’s proceeding Fed.Appx. was the testimony by the DNA evidence it is Limiting complaint, review to Mills’s verdicts). jury’s guilty of the basis alleges that clear that granted mo- Jenkins’s that which suppressed was DNA evidence on the basis that the “new tion to dismiss possession, simply in Jenkins’s upon sperm DNA evidence” “based The com- tested. DNA that SERI later have, fraction that Jenkins did De- that “the semen results claimed plaint that Jenkins did material additional Jenkins termed ‘inconclusive’ fendant have,” Citing appellate the Tennessee not conclusively someone else’s DNA” actually State, 2013 findings, Mills v. WL court’s by De- evidence “used and that the DNA *23-25, court at the district de- actually exculpatory.” fendant Jenkins was that the DNA termined new evidence ‘incon- alleged “Jenkins’[s] It further not to on material available fact based in actually ... ex- clusive’ test results appear It what Jenkins. of two different culpatory and indicative “ by ‘sperm frac- court meant district semen, Mr. of whom was neither men’s did.not have” tion’ that Jenkins material not claim to allegations do Mills.” These DNA material SERI was the additional from DNA rely upon new evidence of the separate from areas under- drew and, thus, subject not to tests SERI testing and the independent in its wear district the deficiencies asserted material” was Mills’s new “additional DNA allegation that any is there court. Nor" to' The district samples provided SERI. way changed any material Mills’s in to appellate court court decision samples. cited To original and later between Mills’s, “testifying] expert as quote district court relied the extent that the ” ‘mistakenly Mills identified’ Jenkins had separate in a expert opinions Mills’s a mental state then noted such it was error. proceeding, of decision. fell short a deliberate Immunity. Qualified C. the district court respect,

With holding that Mills sufficient of motion to beyond the went bounds of evi pleaded his of fabrication ly facts considering drawn dismiss dence, evidence, mali suppression court to deter appellate the state decision that at prosecution, we determine cious complaint had sufficient mine whether the immunity is war qualified this time sup court pleaded a claim. The district ly factually similar in the Again, ranted. appellate of the Tennessee ported its use case, clearly it stated that was Gregory we citation to Thistle Rodic v. decision knowing 1992 that Club, by at Inc., established least Racing F.2d 736 down violates constitu 1980). fabrication “Usually, consideration n.8. rights. Gregory, 444 F.3d tional is permissible to an earlier case” citation course, are, clearly es Brady violations stage, but not a court at dismissal rights. violations constitutional tablished judicial notice lower court “[takes] when a And, is also clear recently, stated it we capable of opinion” reason- of facts stage established clearly summary-judgment “individuals have a dealt with at free right Amendment to from or at be trial. Fourth prosecution by a who defendant

malicious III ‘made, influenced, participated has prosecute plaintiff by, to the decision alleged a state-law claim recklessly example, ‘knowingly or Jenkins. The district to ex court declined making false statements that are material supplemental jurisdiction ercise over prosecution or in reports to either claim because it had dismissed all King, filed secure warrants.” affidavits claims. Mills’s federal Because reverse we omitted). (citations 582-83 court’s dismissal of a number district Although an “entitle[ment] officer’s claims, of Mills’s we also reverse federal immunity ques qualified a threshold the district court’s dismissal of Mills’s possi tion be resolved at the earliest state-law claim and remand to permit summary point,” point usually ble opportunity “to deter Rule judgment and dismissal under ju supplemental mine exercise whether See Bd. Educ. Evans-Marshall v. given sur [this claim] risdiction over the” Dist., Tipp City Exempted Sch. Vill. claims. vival of a number Mills’s federal 2005) (Sutton, Condos, L.C., Bridgewater Veneklase J., concurring) (observing the fact- tests applicable intensive nature “difficult for a make defendant IV qualified immunity plead orig appeal It to note discovery” (emphasis important is that this ings before inal)); stage, at City Chicago, see also Jacobs v. to us comes motion-to-dismiss (7th Cir.2000) (Easter 758, summary at 215 F.3d 775 rather than judgment where brook, J., (“Rule 12(b)(6) concurring) is are more available to the facts almost immunity mismatch for stage, a may pro- At next court. Jenkins dismissal.”); ground always a bad that makes it vide evidence clear that 1117, Sparks, v. 1121 Chesser dif- analytic DNA methods used SERI (11th 2001) immunity is (“[Qualified Cir. fered, to her evidence available summary at typically addressed exculpatory, or that her actions was not case.”); stage of the Grose v. judgment negligent But or were innocent worst. Caruso, 279, Fed.Appx. legally stage, this has stated 2008) (“[T]he 12(b)(6) mo standard For rea- cognizable foregoing claims. if allegations, is taken tion whether sons, court’s REVERSE the district we true, upon could state which as a claim grant motion to of the dismiss. may granted, be dismissal relief [and] im on the basis of Appellants qualified DISSENT munity premature.”). GRIFFIN, Judge, dissenting. Circuit 421, Campbell, 433-34 Wesley dismiss, com 2015) (ci- a motion to (alterations “To original) survive omitted). here, plaint mat must contain sufficient factual like dispute tations true, ter, as a claim accepted ‘state Gregory, appears to that Jen- that in be ” plausible on Ash relief its face.’ argues if the kins that even results incorrect, U.S. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. “[m]ere was a result croft 1937, Bell (quoting dispute But that involves the L.Ed.2d 868 negligence.” 570, Twombly, 550 appropriately of facts more Atl. U.S. Corp. v. resolution (2007)). wood, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 127 S.Ct. 587-88 claim, plaintiffs three To I conclude state must Because such pass plausibly under allege causes of action do muster that the defendant acted standard, case, I pleading “knowingly recklessly.” this would affirm the Id. this and, accordingly, respectfully there -are no Jen district court factual kins -mental dissent. acted state. The with either key paragraphs 46 and 47 the com I. plaint. They allege: wrongly Plaintiff Mills was con- Randall ... Jenkins Defendant claimed child, aggravated rape victed segments that the of underwear contain- exchange battery, sexual and casual aof ing than the one she semen other found substance, complainant after controlled to be Mr. with Mills’s DNA consistent providing marijua- him of her with accused inconclusive data. contained vaginal engaging na and intercourse expert analysis 47. Later revealed that sup- accusation The latter was her. the DNA used Defendant ported prepared by by. report a DNA de- actually exculpatory, Jenkins Jenkins, who reported fendant Sharon many of.the results Defendant semen Mills’ was consistent with one “inconclusive” were ac- Jenkins termed from the samples complainant’s two taken tually conclusively someone else’s DNA. re-examination of Jen- underwear. Later report pre- that Defendant testing re- kins’ additional DNA data and incomplete, sented inaccurate a match vealed that Mills was provided, and had been a true sample, second which results Dearing counsel] Mr. Mills and [defense “inconclusive,” conclu- reported prove he able to have been sively possible as a match. him excluded CM likely engaged sexual rela- exonerated, After filed Mills was he tions with males other March two § in- 1983 suit Jenkins and others had lied "her she about raised prosecution. in his Plaintiff volved her, virginity raping as Mills as well (1) against three separate Jenkins: her, fondling providing her with and- (2) of ev- prosecution; fabrication malicious n marijuana.- idence; withholding and to (“Brady”). Pursuant Rule Federal These nor allegations factual state neither 12(b)(6), to Civil Jenkins moved imply “knowingly Procedure or reckless- Jenkins against her. ly dismiss all three claims (emphasis Id. ma[de]"false statements.” motion, added). granted the district court and Contrary my colleagues, to appealed. plaintiff Later in alleges complaint,

I affirm. -segments Jenkins “misidentified support Mr. in order to Mills’s DNA II. guilty maintain verdict.” order This.“in Prosecution A. Malicious allegation to” of general is the land asser malicious-prose A tion of Amendment intent that survive a motion to Fourth can dismiss, who, accompanied against only a it is cution but if lies defendant among things, “knowingly factual-allegations support other or reck reason (such lessly makes false statements able inference that the defendant acted reports) investigative or See requisite affidavits .or falsi with state mind. Re public fies or Stearns King evidence[J” fabricates v. Har Bank Tr. Co. Bear & & 2012) Co., Inc., preliminary “clearly data excluded Mr. Mills,” (“Although person’s mind alleges but only ‘conditions Jenkins was incorrect, still alleged generally,’ may be not that knowingly she or reck- - plead must facts about the defendant’s lessly her falsified findings. which, true, state, accepted as mental 'complaint comes “close to Plaintiffs ‘plausi allegation make the state-of-mind claim, stating but some without further P, Civ. (quoting ble its face.’” Fed. R. factual 'stops enhancement it short of the 9(b), 556 U.S. at 129 S.Ct. Iqbal, line possibility between plausibility aind 1937)). no again, But are there factual relief;’” ‘entitlement to Twombly, 550U.S. allegations support inference. omitted) (bracketing 127 S.Ct.1955 are, sure, allegations that Jen There be 8(a)(2)). R. (quoting Fed. Civ. P. For that infor kins or “misidentified” “mislabeled” reason, I would affirm the district court’s mation, or provided an “incomplete” to dismiss decision this claim under Rule allegations report. “inaccurate” But those 12(b)(6). provide just support much asser negligently. tion that Jenkins “When acted B. Fabrication of .,. Evidence allega the context the factual makes tions at most with both conduct consistent - Plaintiffs fabrication-of-evidence. .claim not, is is actionable conduct fails, for- same the. In .order reason.' ‘nudge required more is the claims claim, plaintiff allege establish must plausi across the line from conceivable that defendant evi “knowingly fabricated Co., Walgreen ble.’” Deom v. 591 Fed. [him], dence there [that] 2014) curiam) Appx. (per reasonable the- likelihood that false evi omitted) (bracketing (quoting Twombly, could have judgment dence affected the 570, 127 U.S. S.Ct. jury.” Florence, City Stemler contrary relies majority’s conclusion 1997) (emphasis on a an misreading of inapposite portion added). Again, there are naked assertions states, “Ac- complaint. The majority that defendant misidentified markers cording complaint, to the the DNA found verdict, “in to” support guilty order but ‘clearly Mr. underwear excluded complaint lacking allegations factual Mills,’ deliberately but ‘such evidence was supporting a reasonable inference that purposefully withheld’ Jenkins.” knowingly false evi manufactured First, allege does not factual there dence. are What preliminary data. withheld merely liability, consistent with which Second, pieces majority conflates two enough “plausible oh state a claim preliminary DNA data evidence—the 678, Iqbal, 556 its face.” U.S. at 129 S.Ct. report interpreting and Jenkins’ final allega no 1937. Because there are factual data —each which forms the basis “nudge[] tions that across [this] claim[] separate causes action Jenkins. plausible,” the line conceivable prosecution Plaintiffs malicious at 570, Twombly, 550 127 S.Ct. U.S. based on Jenkins’ final she which properly court dismissed this district concluded that results were several test claim well. Missing from plaintiffs “inconclusive.” complaint any allegations- factual Withholding C. of Evidence recklessly falsified knowingly my colleagues I Finally, disagree with report. her findings preparing when allegation dismissing The majority relies on the the district erred To plaintiffs Brady claim. establish America, UNITED STATES

claim, allege, plaintiff must other among Plaintiff-Appellee, fa- things, that Jenkins —herself—withheld City See v. vorable evidence. Moldowan 2009) Warren, 578 F.3d Ulziibayar Enkhchimeg “Eni” (holding investigators equal- bear “an EDWARDS, Defendant- ly important (Brady-derived’ responsibility Appellant. potentially exculpatory turn over evi- 16-2253 No. prosecutor’s (quoting dence to the office.” McKinley, White of Appeals, Court United States 2008))). Seventh Circuit. majority asserts that Jenkins with- MAY 2017 ARGUED exculpatory held evidence when re- she DECIDED AUGUST ported “incon- several the test results colleagues my clusive.” But assume that data, analysis

misreporting her Jen-

kins thereby information she withheld report. complaint

used to make that fact, allege that.

does

alleges prosecutor, Weakley Bar-

nard, preliminary infor- withheld

mation that Jenkins used complete did, indicating report,

final that Jenkins

fact, the data to provide prosecutor. Jenkins, required

That all that was and, id., consequence,

see as a she was plaintiffs to dismissal

entitled withhold-

ing-of-evidence claim.

III. reasons,

For I these affirm the

judgment of the court.

Case Details

Case Name: Randall Mills v. Weakley Barnard

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 28, 2017

Citation: 869 F.3d 473

Docket Number: 16-6597

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.