FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APR 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Cecilia M. Altonag a, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1176 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00367 -CV -T -17-MSS MICH AE L D . P ORT ER , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us BOB WHITE , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y a s S h e r i f

f o f P a s c o C o u n t y, JAME S G ARYFA IRBA NK S, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 12, 200 7) Before AN DE RSO N and MARCU S, Circuit Judges, and AL TO NA GA , District * Judg e. AN DE RSO N, Circuit Judge:Al tho ugh Po rt e r’ s c omp la int e rr on e ou sly

inv ok e s th e Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e of the F if th 1 Am e ndme nt, we wi ll r e fe r t hr ou g ho ut t

his op ini on

to t he Du e Pr oc e ss C la

us e of the F ourt e e nth Amendment, bec ause Porter was prose cuted in state c ourt and be cause his claims in this suit are a g a i n s ta n o n - f e d e r a l g o v e r

n m e n to f f i c i a l an d a n o n - f e d e r a l g o v e r

n m e n t a l e n t i ty. Por te r a lso orig ina lly

su e d F a ir ba nk s in his of fi c ia l c a pa c ity . T he pa

rt ie s st ipu late d to 2 the dis mis sa l of

the of fi c ia l- c a pa c ity c la im i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt .

2 I n 1 9 8 8 , M i c h a e l D. P o rt e r wa s c o n v i c t e do f

b u r g l a ry, k i dn ap p i n g , r o b b e ry, aggravated battery , and sexual b attery in Pasco County , F lorida. H e w as sentenced t o l i fe i n p ri s o n wi t h o u tth e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p ar o l e. In 2 0 0 2 , we g ra n t edPo rt er ’s pe tit ionf or ha be as c or pus an d se t a sid e his c onvi ct iona ft er c onc lud ing that the prosecution had violated hi s due process rights u nder Bra dy v. Mary land, 373 U. S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) , by fai li ng to di sc lo se to hi m , forus e attri al , two favor ab le pol ic e re ports, both of w hic h w er e m at er ia l t o hi s de fe nse . P orte r v. Moo re , N o. 01- 1231 1 ( 11th C ir . F eb . 4, 200 2) ( unpu bli she d) . L at er

in 2002 , thi s tim e equip pe d w iththe pr ev iou sly und isc los ed

r ep orts, P orte r w as r etri ed and acq ui tt edof a ll ch arg es . In200 4, P orte r fi le d th is § 1983 dam ag es a ct iona ga ins t Jam es G . F ai rb an ks, the f orm er P as co Co unty

inv es tig at or

w ho h e al le ge s w ith he ld f ro m the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e the und isc los ed

pol ic e re ports, the re by

de pr ivi ng P orte r of

his Fo urte en th A m en dm en t du e pr oc es s r igh t t o af ai r tr ia l. I n a ddi tio n to his

1 ind ivi dua l- ca

pa ci ty c la im a ga ins t F ai rb an ks, P orte r al le ge s tw o of fi ci al -c ap ac ity 23

cl ai m s a ga ins t B ob Whit e, the f orm er P as co Co unty

S he ri ff . T he c la im s a ga ins t Whit e as se rt

that the c ounty

is lia ble in dam ag es und er

§19 83 f or ina de quate ly tr ai nin g F ai rb an ks and o the r she ri ff ’ s de partm en t e m

plo y ee s inthe pr ope r m ethods of dis cl osi ng B ra dy

m at er ia l, and tha t the c ounty is sim ilarl y

li ab le f or m ai nta ini ng a cu sto m or pol ic y of not dis cl osi ng B ra dy

m at er ia l, w hic h c au se d F ai rb an ks t o vio la te P orte r’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts. Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, th e p art ie s fi le d c ro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. Fai rb an ks an d Whi te m ov edsep arat el y for su m m ary jud gm en t as to all cla im s. Po rt er m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t on ly

on h is c la im

a ga ins t F ai rb an ks. D eny ing Porter’ s m otion and granting su m m ary j udgm ent in favor of Fa irbanks and W hite, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that F ai rb an ks w as e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty on Po rt er ’ s du e pr oc es s c la im ( be ca use F ai rb an ks d id n ot v iol at e a “ cl earl y established” right ) and that Porter had failed to cre ate a genuine issue of m aterial fa ct on h is c la im s a ga ins t Whit e. P orte r ap pe al s. C onc lud ing that P orte r’ s du e p r o c e s s c l a i m f

a i l s o n th e me r i t s , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACKGROUND Just b efore m idnig ht on Ju ne 26, 1987, Morton Young was brutally attacked an d r ap ed in he r ro om

a t the L aR

ue Mo te l i n H oli day , F lor ida . F oll ow ing the attack, Young m ade her w ay to a nearby

gas station to seek help. W illiam4

K ar ci nski and S an dy

N ic hol as w er e dis pa tc he d to the ga s st at ionin re spon se to a ca ll fr om the statio n a tte ndant —

a t the ti m e, K ar ci nski w as ar ec en tly hir ed de puty she ri ff w iththe P as co Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e, and N ic hol as w as his f ie ld tra ini ng of fic er. Karci ns ki an d Ni ch ol as were t he fir stlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s t o re sp on d. A cc or din g to K ar ci nski , Y oung w as “ cr y ing , ne rv ous, [ an d] ups et . ” K ar ci nski interviewed Y oung at the gas station. H e asked her if she could p rovide a description o f her attacker and if she could recount th e m anner in which she had been attacked. She did both. Karcinski recorded Y oung ’ s statem ents in a written inc ide nt r ep ort. Karcinski’ s report revea ls that Young was w atching televisio n in her be dr oom aro und 11: 30 p . m . w he n sh e he ar d anoi se c om ing f ro m the kit ch en/li vin g ro om are a. S he got

up t o in ve sti ga te and w as c onf ro nte d by am anw ho wra

ppe d a belt around her neck and spun her ar oundso she couldnot see his face. T elling her t o k ee p qu i et , t h e man l ai dYo u n g d o wn o n h ers t o m ac h an ds ai d , “ I b et y o ud i dn ’t knowI w as goi ng t o do thi s. I ’ ve be enw at ch ing y ou. ” T he m anti ght en ed the be lt ar ound Y oung ’ s ne ck , dr ag ge d he r fr om r oom to ro om thr ough out

the uni t, and tried repeatedly

to have sex with her. A fter se veral fa iled attem pts to o btain an erec tion, the m an finally

succeeded and proceeded to ra pe Young while she w as subm er ge d inaba tht

ub h al f fi lle d w ithw at er . Whe n he w as f ini she d, the m antol d5

Y oung to lie f

ac e down onthe c ouc h be ca use he w as “ goi ng t o take he r m one y and le av e. ” Y oung stay ed

on the c ouc h f

or appr oxi m at el y

ha lf an ho ur be fo re goi ng t o the ga s st at ionf

or he lp. D es pit e he r vie whavin g be enpart ia lly obs cure d duri ng the atta ck , Y oung wa s able to give Karc inski the following description of her attacker, which Karci ns ki reco rd edin hi s re po rt —Race : Whi te . Age: 38 -4 0. Hei gh t: 5’7” -5 ’9”. W ei ght : 15 0 lb s. H ai r: D ar k. E y es : U nkno w n. B uil d: T hin . Y oung tol d K ar ci nski that he r atta ck er

ha d be enw eari ng b lue j eans and an un known ty pe shi rt . Rathe r than go ing to the L aR ue Mo te l t o vi ew

the sc en e of

the a tta ck , K ar ci nski and N ic hol as a cc om panie d Y oung to the loc al hos pit al . A t the hos pit al , the y m et the le ad inv es tig at or

a ssi gne d to the c as e, Jam es G . F ai rb an ks. F ai rb an ks al so w orke d f

or the P as co Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e. K ar ci nski pr oc ee de d to te ll Fa ir banks al l of

the inf orm at ionhe ha d le ar

ne d f ro m Y oung . K ar ci nski say s he inform ed Fairbanks of Y oung ’ s description o f the attac ker during their initial conversation. Karcinski didnot provi de Fairbanks a copy of his written r eport at the hosp ital, howe ver, because it w as not y et com plete and because it had not been ap pr ove d by

K ar ci nski ’ s su

pe rv iso r. F ai rb an ks d oe s no t r em em be r K ar ci nski giv ing him

ade sc ri pti on o f Y oung ’ s a tta ck er a t the hos pit al . F ai rb an ks s ay s he f ir st l ea rn edo f t h e d es cr i p t i o n Yo u n g g av e K ar ci n s k i wh en h e r ec ei v edKa rc i n s k i ’s6

re port onJun e 28. A ft er spe ak ing to K ar ci nski and N ic hol as , F ai rb an ks i nte rv ie w ed Y oung w hil e sti ll at

the hos pit al . Y oung r ec ount ed the de ta ils of

the a tta ck . S he tol d Fa ir banks that sh e co uld

not pr ovi de ade sc ri pti on o f he r atta ck er ’ s f ac e, but she w as able to giv e him

age ne ra l ph y sic al de sc ri pti on. A cc or din g to F ai rb an ks, You ng st at edth athe r at ta ck er was a whi te m al e, 6’1” in he ig ht , weig he d 1 50 lb s., had dark wavy

hair, and appeared to be in his late 30s. Fair banks recorded You ng ’s st at em en ts in a writ te n re po rt d at edJu ly 7, 19 87 . Fo llo w ing the ir

m ee tin g w ithF ai rb an ks at the hos pit al , K ar ci nski and Nicholas w ere sent to the LaRue M otel to m onito r the scene of the crim e. T here, they encountered Pasco County deputy sheriff T hom as He ndrickson , who had been dis pa tc he d to the m ote l sh ortly a ft er the a tta ck

w as r ep orte d. Whil e se curi ng the sc en e uponhis arr iva l at the m ote l, H en dr ic ksonobs er ve d aMarl bor o c igare tte lying on th e fl oo r of

th e k it ch en in th e u ni t wh ere Yo un g h adbe enatt ack ed . He la te r co nduc te d asw ee p of the are a sur

ro undi ng the c ri m e sc en e an d sp oke to a handful of ind ividu als. O ne of the individ uals with whom He ndrickson spoke was Tony Hawkins. H aw kins, whom He ndrickson observed sm okin g a Marlboro ci gare tte , tol d H en dr ic ksonthat he ha d c om e to the m ote l at a ppr oxi m at el y

1:3 0 a. m . to visit his friend Robert Ge orge, who liv ed there. H aw kins andGe orge we re7

si tt in g a t an ou td oo r tabl e h av in g abe er wh en Hend ric ks on en co un te redth em . H en dr ic ksona lso spo ke to G eo rg e. N ei the r H awkin s no r G eo rg e w as able to re la te an y in fo rm at io n Hen dr ic ks on co ns id eredpa rti cu la rly us efu l t o t he in ve st ig at io n. He ndrickson summ arize d in a wr itten report his conv ersations with Ge orge, H awkin s, and tw o othe r ind ivi dua ls p re se nt at the m ote l. I nc lud ed in H en dr ic kson ’ s r ep ort w as the f oll ow ing de sc ri pti on o f H awkin s: B or n in194 4; 5’ 9” in height ; 160 lb s.; brow n hair; blue ey es. He ndrickson also recorded the f act that H awkin s sm oke d M ar lbo ro c igare tte s. A t the ti m e he spo ke w iththe se f our ind ivi dua ls, H en dr ic ksonw as aw ar e of the de sc ri pti on Y oung ha d gi ve n K ar ci nski at the ga s st at ion . H en dr ic ksonr ec ogni ze d th at , w hil e sim ilar, the de sc ri pti on o f Hawkins and the description of the attacker Young had provi ded Kar cinski were not ide nti ca l. T he de sc ri pti ons w er e not sim ilar en oughto m ak e H en dr ic kson sus pe ct that H awkin s w as the a tta ck er . H ad his sus pic ion s be enr ai se d, H en dr ic ksonsay s, he “ w oul d have im m ed ia te ly c ont ac te d th e ca se de te ct ive and m ade sure he stuck around.” A ccording to th e sheriff departm ent policy

in place at the ti m e, H en dr ic ksonw oul d have be enr equir ed to co m ple te his r ep ort and p la ce it in a box for his sergeant’ s approval by the end of his shift. From there, the report w oul d have be enf

or w ar de d to the le ad

de te ct ive on the c as e, F ai rb an ks. Fa ir banks re ce ive d H en dr ic kson ’ s r ep ort onJun e 28, the sam e day he8

re ce ive d K ar ci nski ’ s. F ai rb an ks h ad an op portun ity

a t this poi nt t o ga

uge the sim ilarities and differe nces betwe en the two descriptions Young g ave of her atta ck er and the de sc ri pti on o f H awkin s r ec or de d by H en dr ic kson . F ai rb an ks co nd uc te d afol lo w up in te rv ie w wit h Yo un g t hr ee o r fo urda y s af te r th e at ta ck . D ur ing thi s in te rv ie w , Y oung and the m an ag er of the L aR ue Mo te l gave F ai rb an ks t h e n a me o f

M i c h a e l P o rt e r

a s s o me o n e w h o s h o u l db e i n v e s t i g a t e d . P o rt e r ’s n a me surface d after the m otel m anager had re viewed the guest rec ords and determ ined that Porter and his wif

e, Susan, who were going through a bitter separ ation, had stay ed a t the m ote l sh or

tly be fo re the a tta ck . G ive n th e co nf irm at ionof

his pr es en ce a t the m ote l j ust day s be fo re Jun e 26, P orte r qui ck ly be cam e a targ et

of the investig ation because, ac cording to Karcinski’ s report, Young’ s attacker had said to her, “ I bet y ou did n’ t know I w as going to do th is. I ’ ve been watching y ou.” Y oung ne ve r sugg es te d to F ai rb an ks tha t sh e tho ught H awkin s w as the one w ho attacked her. Fa ir banks inf orm ed S usan th at

he r husb an d w as be ing inv es tig at ed a s a sus pe ct in the Jun e 26 atta ck . F ai rb an ks and S usan m et or spo ke on the te le phon e several tim es. During one of their fir st discus sions , S usan told Fairbanks that Po rt er ha d apr ope nsi ty

f or e nga gin g invio le nt s ex and tha t, a t t im es , she f eare d f or he r ph y si cal saf

et y . Fairba nk s t oo k n o s te ps to co rro bo rat e Su sa n’s al le ga ti on s.9

Fairbanks hom ed in on Porter as a potenti al suspect even m ore intently after Susan, during one of her discussio ns with Fairbanks, r eported that Porter had taken cr ed it fo r the Jun e 26 atta ck and h ad c onf es se d sp ec if

ic de ta ils about

it . A cc or din g to S usan, P orte r tol d he r in m id- A ugus t tha t the a tta ck a t the m ote l w as f

ue le d by his ange r at

S usan f or se paratin g f

ro m him . H e furthe r state d th at he br oke int o th e m ote l i nte ndi ng t o ki ll a w om an . Whe n he le ar ne d of P orte r’ s st at em en ts, Fa ir banks tho ught

that the c ri m e- re la te d f

ac ts P orte r div ulg ed

to Su san w er e fa ct s that c oul d have be enkno w n on ly to the a tta ck er . F ai rb an ks w as unaw ar e at the tim e he spo ke to Su san th at aloc al ne w spa

pe r ha d publi she d asto ry c ont ai nin g m any de ta ils of the a tta ck

sho rt ly a ft er Jun e 26. A t so m e poi nt d

ur ing the inv es tig at ion , F ai rb an ks e nte re d P orte r’ s nam e int o a com puter database of cr im inal offenders and discovered inform ation abou t an unso lve d c ri m e in whic h aw hit e m al e ha d a tte m pte d to c lim

b th ro ugh the w ind ow of ay oung w om an ’ s a

partm en t, but

w as c ha se d of

f by the w om an ’ s sc re am s f

or he lp . The v ic ti m

of t he bu rg la ry

id en ti fie d ane arb y

ne ig hb oras t he pe rp et rat or . The neighbor’ s nam e w as Michael P orter. T he victim filed a police re port de sc ri bin g th e inc ide nt. H er de sc ri pti on i nc lud ed

the f ac t tha t a be lt w as f

ound on the balcony

underneath her apartm ent window. Rec ogni zing the sim ilarity betwee n the two attacks, Fairbanks attem pted uns uccessfully

to locate the victim

who had10

fi le d th e pol ic e re port. H e w as not able to de te rm ine w he the r the Mi ch ae l P orte r he wa s investi gating for the LaR ue Motel attack lived near the victim of the ear lier cr im e at the ti m e it oc curr ed . A ft er ane ar ly thr ee m onth in ve sti ga tio n, F ai rb an ks arr es te d P orte r on Se pte m be r 24, 198 7. I n hi s arr es t r ep ort, F ai rb an ks l ist ed P orte r as 6’ 1” in he igh t, stated that he was born in 1960 , that he w eighed 170 lbs., and that he had blu e ey es an d bl ac k ha ir . T his phy sic al de sc ri pti on w as not r ad ic al ly dif fe re nt f ro m the de sc ri pti on Y oung ha d gi ve n F ai rb an ks i n th e hosp ita l onthe nig ht o f the a tta ck , althoug h it diddiffer

subst antially

from the description Young gave Karcinski at the ga s st at ionand f

ro m the de sc ri pti on o f T ony

H awkin s c ont ai ne d in H en dr ic kson ’ s r ep ort. Po rt er w as br ough t t o tr ia l onAugus t 15 , 198 8. D ec lan M an sf ie ld pr ose cu te d th e ca se on b eh al f of the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e. A ssi stant P ubl ic D ef en de r St ep he n D eh nart

r ep re se nte d P orte r. D eh nart w as not ve ry f am ili ar w ith the case, however. H e had inherited it onlythree or f our wee ks before trial a fter Porter’ s original attorney , A ssistant Public De fender Mic hael McMillan, who had handl ed pr etri al dis co ve ry , w as f or ce d to ste p a sid e due to a se ri ous vir al inf ec tio n that r es ult ed

in a co m a la sti ng thr ee or f our m onths. Mc Mi llan te sti fi ed in his deposit ion in this case that his illn ess in 198 8 disrup ted the orderly discoveryAn “invest” is a meetingbetwee n the law e nforc ement off icer s handlingan investig ation 3 and the pr osecutor, a

t which time a dec ision is m ade r eg ardingwhether the State will file cha

rg es 11 pr oc es s. Mc Mi ll an di d n ot ke ep a li stch ro ni cl in g wh ic h p ol ic e rep or ts he rece iv ed . Mc Mi llan do es not

r em em be r re ce ivi ng e ith er

the K ar ci nski or

the H en dr ic kson report during the tim e he re presented Porter. D ehnart likewise did not have either the Kar cinski or the Hendrickson report during the 1988 trial. Porter wa s co nvi ct ed . T w o m onths l at er , he w as se nte nc ed to lif e in p ri son w ith out

the po ss ib il it y

of p aro le . As the lea d investi gator on the case, it was F airbanks’ s oblig ation to ensu re that all police reports prepared in connection with the investig ation were turned o v e r t o th e S t a t e At t o rn e y’s Of f i c e . F a i r b a n k s a c kn o w l e d g e dh i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, te sti fy ing in a de posi tio n f or thi s c as e: “ Ba ck

the n, I don ’ t kn oww ha t the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e obl igatio n w as . A nd tha t w as n’ t m y j ob t o kn oww ha t the ir obl igatio n w as . B ut I ha d an ob lig at ionto furn ishthe m w iththe r ep orts, w hic h I did . Y es , sir . ” Whil e Fa ir banks cannot

r ec al l wha t the pr oc ed

ur e w as in 1988 f

or fo rw ar din g po lic e re ports t o th e St at e A tto rn ey ’ s O ff ic e, he is co nf

ide nt h e co m pli ed w ithit : [I] t wa s m

y responsibi lity

to get the reports together and send th em ove r . . . and I don ’ t r ec al l whe the r I hand- carr ie d th em to the f ro nt desk at the State A ttorney ’ s Of fice or . . . whether I took [them ] over [whe n] w e w er e havin g an in ve st, or w he the r the re w as abox in the 3ag ainst the subject of the investigation. 12

of fi ce . I j ust

don ’ t r em em

be r ex ac tly

w ha t the pr oc ed

ur e w as . B ut I knowI f oll ow ed the pr oc ed

ur e. I a lw ay s f

oll ow ed the pr oc ed

ur e, and [h ad ] no r ea son not

to. Fairbanks never followe d up with the State A ttorney ’ s Of fice to see whether the r ep orts w er e ac tua lly

r ec ei ve d. F ai rb anks c annot say f or c er ta in whe the r the re ports w er e in M an sf

ie ld’ s f ile be fo re or

dur ing the 198 8 tr ia l. H is unc er ta inty notw ith standi ng, F ai rb an ks t es tif ie d th at the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e m ust have re ce ive d th e re ports b ef

or e the inv es t pr oc ee din g w as he ld b ec au se , if Mansf ie ld ha d no t ha d c opi es of

the “ or igi na l r ep orts o f the of fe nse ” dur ing the inv es t, he would have “

j um ped all over m e” and “ eaten m e alive. ” Mansfield did neither. Mansf ie ld h as no s pe ci fi c re co lle ct ionof e ith er of the r ep orts. Mansf

ie ld te sti fi ed , how ev er , that he ha bit ua lly tur ne d ov er to the de fe nse a ll pol ic e re ports h e re ce ive d. H e te sti fi ed

that i f the de fe nse f

ai le d to ge t a

part ic ular re port, it

m ust ha ve be en be cau se th e rep or t was ne ve r rec ei ve d i n t he Sta te Att orne y ’s Offic e. Mansfield’ s practice in 1987-198 8 was to turn over to defense attorney s all police re ports, so l ong as the r ep orts w er e “ co nne ct ed to the c as e. ” A cc or din g to Mansf ie ld, the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff ic e m ai nta ine d no r ec or d- ke ep ing sy ste m to track which reports wer e turned over to the defense in a given case and which ones w e r e n o t . M a n s f

i e l dt e s t i f i e dth a tp o l i c e r e p o rt s “w o u l db e h a n d e do v e r a ts o me13

poi nt” by the appr opr ia te of

fi ce r, but that “ I’ m not qui te sur e howit

got int o our file because it went to a secr etary who w ouldput it in a file and then y ou would at som e poi nt g et

it . I t w as n’ t hande d to y ou p er sona lly . ” Mansf ie ld a dm itt ed , however, that police reports we re, on occasion, inadvertently left out of discovery pa ck et s se nt t o de fe nse c ouns el . I n f ac t, w he n a ske d a t hi s de posi tio n w he the r thi s ev er h ap pe ne d, M an sf

ie ldres po nd ed : “ Abs ol ut el y . Abs ol ut el y .” In 1994, in conn ection with a fe deral habeas petition filed by Porter , C harles Fu lgi er i, an in ve sti ga tor

w iththe F ed er al P ubl ic D ef en de r’ s O ff

ic e, be gan lo oki ng int o th e ci rc um stanc es sur ro undi ng P orte r’ s c onvi ct ion . A s part of his inv es tig at ion , F ulg ie ri tr av el ed to the D ad e Ci ty

loc at ionof

the P as co Co unty Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e w he re he w as tol d th at r ec or ds f ro m the P orte r ca se w er e be ing sto re d. F ulg ie ri w as giv enapa ck et of doc um en ts. I nc lud ed

in the pa ck et

w er e the Fairbanks report, the He ndrickson report, the Karcinski report, and a report pr ep ar ed by ac ri m e sc en e te ch nic ian. S hortly a ft er r ec ei vin g th es e doc um en ts, Fu lg ie ri we nt to rev ie w th e Po rte r fi le in th e st at e p ub li c d efen de r’s of fic e. Ac cording to Fulg ieri, the state file c ontained n o poli ce r eports at all — not even Fa ir banks’ s r ep or

t, w hic h P orte r ha s ne ve r al le ge d w as w ith he ld f ro m the prosecution or the defense. Fulgieri tried to speak with Fair banks abo ut the m atter, but Fairbanks refused14

to sp eakto hi m

wit ho ut th e p res en ce o f an Ass is ta nt Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey . Fulgieri never spoke with Karcinski, H endrickson, or Mansfield. De nhart ref used to s pe ak w ithF ulg ie ri . Mc Mi llan, w ho d id s pe ak w ithF ulg ie ri , c oul d no t pr ovi de any inf orm at ionabout

the r ep orts. O n th e ba sis of

the inf orm at ionle ar

ne d by F ulg ie ri , P orte r ad de d to his fe de ra l ha be as pe tit ionan a lle ga tio n th at the S ta te vio la te d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts un de r Bra dy when itfai le d t o t urn o ve r th e Karci ns ki an d Hen dr ic ks on rep or ts . A ft er P orte r ex haust ed

his Br ady

c la im in state c ourt, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d th e cl ai m on the m er its . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the r ep orts w er e favor ab le to P orte r’ s de fe nse and w er e supp re sse d by the pr ose cu tio n, but

that the y w er e not

“ m aterial” for Br ady

purposes b ecause there wa s not “ a re asonable probabil ity that the r es ult of thi s tr ia l w oul d have be endif fe re nt” if the y ha d be endis cl ose d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d P orte r’ s ha be as pe tit ion . O n a

ppe al , P orte r ch al le nge d th e district court’ s rej ection of his Brady claim . W e concluded that the reports wer e m at eri al , rev ers edth e d is tri ctco ur t, an d g ran te d P or te r’s habe as pe ti ti on . On re tr ia l, in 2002 , P orte r w as a cquitte d of a ll ch ar ge s. In200 4, P orte r fi le d th is § 1983 a ct ion , a lle gin g th at “ Jam es G ar

y F ai rb an ks ill eg al ly and wro ngf

ull y sup pr es se d m at er ia l e xc ulp at or y e vid en ce in vio la tio n of Plaintiff’ s rights un der the [F ourteenth] Am endm ent to the United States15

Co ns ti tu ti on .” Co m

pl . ¶1. Al so , as we n ot edat t he ou ts et , Por te r al le ge d t wo cl ai m s a ga ins t S he ri ff

Whit e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of F ai rb anks and Whit e. P orte r ap pe al s.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, appl y ing the sam e standard s th at

bound the dis tr ic t c ourt and v ie w ing the e vid en ce and a ll reasonable infere nces in the light m ost favorable to the non -m ovin g party . See D ra go v . Je nne , 453 F . 3d 1 301, 130 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . “ Sum m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr ia te w he n ‘ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f

ac t and . . . the m ovin g party

is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law. ’ ” Id. (quoting Fed. R.C iv.P. 56(c)). III. DISC USSION T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t F ai rb an ks w as e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty on Po rt er ’ s du e pr oc es s c la im , c onc lud ing that F ai rb an ks h ad not vio late d a“ cl earl y established” princip le of constituti onal law; nam ely , the due proce ss principle that fo rb id s p ol ic e fro m

in te nt io na ll y

wit hh ol di ng Brad y

m at eri al fro m

pro se cu to rs . Fa ir banks ur ge s us to af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s qu al if ie d- im m uni ty de te rm inatio n because, as of 1988, the tim e at which Fairbanks is alleged to have vio lated Po rt er ’ s F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh ts, the onl y r el ev an t du e pr oc es s pr inc ipl e16

“ cl earl y e sta bli she d” by

bin din g pr ec ed en t w as that po lic e of fi ce rs c oul d no t int en tio nal lyw ith hol d f

ro m pr ose cu tor s m at er ia l e vid en ce f av or ab le to the de fe nse — c ondu ct

that F ai rb an ks s ay s P orte r cannot pr ove . S ee Mc Mi lli anv. Joh nson , 88 F. 3d 1 554, 156 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( “ O ur c as e lawc le ar ly

e sta bli she d [ as of

198 7 and 198 8] that an accused’ s due process rights are violated when the police conceal ex cu lpator

y or im pe ac hm en t e vid en ce ”) . P orte r, on the oth er hand, w ho r ea ds o ur d ec i s i o n i n Mc M i l l i an m o re b ro ad l y, ur g es u s t o re v er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s qua lif ie d- im m uni ty de te rm inatio n be ca

use , in his vie w , Mc Mi lli anstands fo r the pr opos iti on tha t, a s of

198 8, the due pr oc es s c lause pr ohi bit ed anyf ai lur e on the part of pol ic e of fi ce rs to dis cl ose to pr ose cu tor s m at er ia l e vid en ce f av or ab le to the de fen se — wh et he r an off ic er ac te d i nt en ti on al ly, ne gl ig en tl y , or b la m el es sl y . Porter also argues that, even if his reading of McMillian is m istaken, he has pr oduc ed “ am ple c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce ” to s howthat F ai rb an ks “ m or e lik el y than no t i nte nti ona lly

w ith he ld the tw o m iss ing r ep orts f ro m the pr ose cu tor . ” F or the r ea sons se t f

orth b el ow , w e co nc lud e that P orte r’ s du e pr oc es s c la im f ai ls o n th e m er its of the c onst itu tio na l qu es tio n. T his c onc lus ion , of c our se , m oot s th e “ cl earl y es tabl is he d” in qu iry. When confronted with a governm ent official’ s invo cation of qualified im m uni ty , w e have be enins tr uc te d by the S upr em e Co urt t o f

ir st d ec ide the17

thr es hol d is sue — b ef

or e ad dr es sin g w he the r the part ic ular ri ght w as “ cl earl y established” at the tim e it w as allegedly violated — of whether the off icial has de pr ive d th e pla int if

f of ac onst itu tio na l r igh t at a ll. S ee Br oss ea u v. H au ge n, 543 U . S. 194 , 197 , 125 S . Ct . 596 , 598 ( 2004 ); S au ci er v. K at z, 533 U . S. 194 , 201 , 121 S. Ct . 215 1, 215 6 ( 2001 ) (“ ins ist ing [ that c ourts] tur n[ ] to the e xis te nc e or none xis te nc e of

ac onst itu tio na l r igh t a s th e fi rs t i nqui ry ”) ; W ils on v . L ay ne , 526 U . S. 603 , 609 , 119 S . Ct . 169 2, 169 7 ( 1999 ) (“ Ac ourt e va luatin g ac la im of qua lif ie d im m uni ty ‘ m ust f ir st d et er m ine w he the r the pla int if f ha s a lle ge d th e de pr ivatio n of

an a ct ua l c onst itu tio na l r igh t at a ll . . . . ’ ”) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); Co nn v. G ab be rt , 526 U . S. 286 , 290 , 119 S . Ct . 129 2, 129 5 ( 1999 ); Co unty of Sacr am ento v. L ew is, 523 U. S. 833, 841 n.5, 118 S. C t. 1708, 1714 n.5 (1998 ); Si eg er t v. G ill ey , 500 U . S. 226 , 232 , 111 S . Ct . 178 9, 179 3 ( 1991 ). W e pr oc ee d to the “ cl earl y

e sta bli she d” pr ong of

the qua lif

ie d- im m uni ty inquir y — the pr ong on w hic h F ai rb an ks and P orte r have f oc use d —

onl y “ [i ] f a co nst itu tio na l r igh t w oul d have been violated un der the plain tiff’s ve rs ionof the f ac ts. ” L ee v. F er

raro , 284 F. 3d 1 188, 119 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ; se e Sa uc ie r, 533 U . S. a t 20 1, 121 S . Ct . a t 21 56 (“ If no c onst itu tio na l r igh t w oul d have be envio la te d w er e the a lle ga tio ns established, there is no necessity for f urther inquiries concerning qu alified imm un it y ”).The right protecte d by the B rady

rule is “the de fenda

nt’s rig ht to a fair tr ial mandated by 4 the Due Proc ess Clause of the [Fourteenth] Amendment to the Constitut ion.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S. Ct . 2392, 2399 (1976); see Gra y son v. King , 460 F.3d 1328, 1337 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 6) (“ Th e B ra dy

ru le is gro un de d in

a de fe nd ant’ s r ig ht t o a

fa ir tr ia l” ). Th e ri g ht t o a fa ir trial, in turn, stems from the proc edura l sphere of the Due Proc ess Clause. See D aniels v. Wil liams, 474 U.S. 327, 337, 106 S . Ct. 677, 678 (1986) (The Due Proc ess Clause of the Four teenth Amendme nt contains “a guara ntee of fair pr ocedur e, sometimes re fer red to a s ‘p ro c e dura l du e pr oc e ss’ : th e State may no t . . . im

pr iso n . . . a

de fe nd ant w ith out g ivi nghim a fair tr ial”) ( Stevens, J ., concur ring ). 18 Given the Suprem e Court’ s insis tence that w e re solve assertions of qualified im m unityin this m anner, we first determ ine the m erits of Porte r’ s claim — w hether he has produced evidence from which a r easonable j uror could conclud e that Fai rb an ks ’s con du ctde pr iv edhi m of a rig ht gu aran te edby the Due P ro ces s C la us e. Ourfir sttas k i s t o e xa m in e th e ri gh t al le ge d t o h av e b een vi ol at edby Fairb an ks . See Le wis, 523 U.S . at 841 n .5, 118 S. Ct. at 1714 n.5 (“ As in any action under § 19 83, the f

ir st s te p is to ide nti fy

the e xa ct c ont our s of

the und er ly ing r igh t sa id t o have be envio la te d” ); se e al so B ak er v. Mc Co llan, 443 U . S. 137 , 140 , 99 S . Ct . 2689 , 269 2 ( 1979 ) (“ T he f ir st i nqui ry

in any § 19 83 s uit ” is “ to i sol at e the pr ec ise constitu tional vi olation with w hich [the defendant] is charged”). A s no te d a t the out se t, w e have a lr ea dy he ld tha t P orte r’ s pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s r igh t t o af

ai r tr ia l w as vio la te d in198 8. S ee P orte r v. Mo or e, N o. 01- 4 1 2 3 1 1 (1 1 t h Ci r. Fe b . 4 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( u np ub l i s h ed ). Sp ec i fi ca l l y, we h el dth at Po rt er ’s ri ght und er Br ady to re ce ive e vid en ce f

av or ab le to his de fe nse , e vid en ce that i n19

Po rt er ’ s c as e ha d bo th e xc ulp at or y and i m pe ac hm en t va lue , w as vio la te d “ w he n th e prosecutor withheld favorable police reports fr om Porter ’ s defense counsel.” Id. at 3. W e he ld tha t the und isc los ed r ep orts w er e m at er ia l f

or Br ady pur pose s be ca

use Po rt er ha d “ shown ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that the r es ult

of the tr ia l w oul d have be endif fe re nt i f the pol ic e re ports h ad be enpr oduc ed

and ava ila

ble . ” I d. a t 4. O ur de te rm inatio n th at

P orte r’ s pr oc ed

ur al due pr oc es s r igh ts w er e vio la te d by the pr ose cu tio n’ s f

ai lur e to o bse rv e its Br ady obl igatio ns the re fo re c au se d us to gr an t Po rt er ’ s pe tit ionf

or ha be as c or pus an d se t a sid e his c onvi ct ion . P orte r m ai nta ins in the pr es en t su it that F ai rb an ks c au se d th e unde rl y ing Br ady vio la tio n and tha t hi s co nduc t i n c au sin g th at

due pr oc es s vi olatio n m ak es him pr ope rl y li ab le f or da m ag es un de r §1 98 3. Ourdi sc us si on of P or te r’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Fa irb an ks pro ceed s i n t hr ee p art s. Fi rs t, w e not e that i t r em ai ns an op enque sti on i n th is C ir cu it w he the r the procedural due process violatio n that resulted from the prosecution’s nondis closure of Br ady m at er ia l i s th e sam e co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n th at sub j ec ts F ai rb an ks t o ci vil li ab ili ty

und er § 19 83 o r w he the r Po rt er ’ s c la im a ga ins t F ai rb an ks i s pr ed ic at ed

on an in de pe nde nt d

ue pr oc es s vi olatio n. S ee Je anv. Co lli ns, 221 F . 3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 2000 ) (e n banc) (W ilkin son, C. J., concurring) (noting, on sim ilar fa ct s, that “ [t ] he que sti on b ef or e us n owis w he the r the re w as an addi tio nal20

constitu tional vi olation in this case”) (e m phasis add ed). Sec ond, we consider w he the r anof

fi ci al in Fa ir

banks’ s po sit ion , w hose c ondu ct a lle ge dly c au se d a Br ady vio la tio n, c anbe sa id t o have c au se d ac onst itu tio na l de pr ivatio n if his co nduc t i s no m or e than m er el y ne gli ge nt. T hir d, w e co nsi de r w he the r the re is ev ide nc e in this c as e fr om w hic h ar ea sona

ble j ur or c oul d c onc lud e that F ai rb an ks is l ia ble und er § 19 83 f or vio la tin g P orte r’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts. A . Po rt er ’ s C la im

A ga ins t F ai rb an ks i n this § 1 983 Action for Dam ages In McMillian, a

§198 3 action against law enforce m ent officials that involv ed al le gatio ns s im ilar to P orte r’ s, w e state d th at “ § 19 83 p ro vid es ac au se of a ct ionf or a v io la ti on of t he du e p ro ces s ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l t ha t i s p ro te ct edby Brady.” 88 F . 3d at 15 67 n . 12. A ft er vari ous Br ad

y vio la tio ns c au se d hi s m

ur de r co nvi ct ion and death sentence to be set aside on appeal, McMillian sued several law en fo rc em en t of

fi ci al s w ho h e al le ge d “ supp re sse d and w ith he ld e xc ulp at or y and im pe ac hm en t e vid en ce in vio la tio n of [ Mc Mi lli an ’ s] due pr oc es s r igh ts unde r the Fourteenth Am endm ent.” Id. at 1560. Tr eating the und erly ing Brady violatio n as the ba sis f

or Mc Mi lli an ’ s a lle ga tio ns a ga ins t the lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ci al s, the district court denied qu alified im m unityto three of the off

icials, holding th at McMillian had created a genuine issu e of m aterial f act on the questio n of whetherBe cause of the interloc utory posture of the appea l, and bec ause the district court had 5 conclude d that McMillian adduce d sufficie nt evidence to cre ate a g enuine issue of

fac t reg arding whether the offic ials’ conduc t was intentional, we pr ocee ded dire ctly to the purely

leg al question pr e se nte d b y

the “ c le arl y

e sta bli sh e d” pr on gof

the qu a lif

ie d- immun ity

ana ly sis . In o the r w or ds , we did not have occa sion to determine the a ppropriate level of c ulpability nece ssary

to state the sort of due pr ocess c laim McMillian asserted. A s to McMilli an’s due proce ss claim ag ainst the officia ls, we simply

assumed that the of

ficials ac ted intentionally and noted f

or qualifiedimmun ity purp os e s th at if

the of fi c ia ls inte nti on all

ywithheld what they

knew to be B rady materia l, then they

violated clea

rly established law. O ur dec ision in McMil lian, there fore , left o p e nth e qu e s t i o no f

w h e th e r l e s s - th an - i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c tw o u l d s u f f i c e t o e s t a b l i s ha B r a dyty pe due pr ocess c laim ag ainst law enf orce ment officia ls. 21 the of fi ci al s “ int en tio na lly

w ith he ld s ev er al pie ce s of e xc ulp at or

y and i m pe ac hm en t evidence from

the . . . prosecutor.” Id. at 1566. The district court f urther de te rm ine d th at

alawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ci al ’ s in te nti ona l w ith hol din g of Br ady m at er ia l f ro m apr ose cu tor

w as pr ohi bit ed

by c le ar ly e sta bli she d du e pr oc es s principles at the tim e of the alleged w ithho lding . Id. On the offic ials’ interlocutory ap pe al , w e ac ce pte d a s tr

ue Mc Mi lli an ’ s a lle ga tio ns o f int en tio na l w ith hol din g 5 an d , i n th e p ro ce s s o f c o n s i d er i n g wh et h erth e o ff i ci al s v i o l at edMc M i l l i an ’s clear ly established du e process rights, w e re cognized that a handful of courts had pe rm itt ed Br ady -ty pe due pr oc es s c la im s to be pur sue d a ga ins t l awe nf or ce m en t of fic ia ls un de r §1 98 3. Id . at 1 56 7 n .12 . W e ag reedan d h el d t ha t, u nd er § 19 83 , a pl ai nt iff m ay ass erta du e p ro ces s cl ai m form on ey

da m ag es ag ai ns t a p ol ic e o ffi cer. Id . T hus, Mc Mi lli ane sta bli she s P orte r’ s r igh t t o purs ue thi s §1 983 ac tio n f orAlthough the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims arisingin Florida is four y ear s, see 6 Cha pp e ll v . Ri c h, 34 0 F .3 d 1 27 9, 12 83 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 3) , Po rt e r’ s d

ue pr oc e ss c la im a g a ins t F a ir ba nk s is no t ti me -b arr e d, be c a us e , und e r H e c k v . H ump hr e y , 5 12 U. S. 4 77 , 4 89 -9 0, 11 4 S. Ct. 23 64 , 2 37 4 ( 19 94 ), his § 1 98 3 c a us e of a c tio n, se e kin ga s it

do e s d ama g e s to re dr e ss t ime spent in prison following c onviction at a constitutionally defic ient trial, did not acc rue until we vacated his conviction in 2002. I d. (“[A] § 1983 cause of action for

damag es attributable to a n unconstitutional conviction or sentenc e does not a ccr ue until the conviction or sente nce ha s been i n v a l i d at e d ” ) . P o rt e r ’ s § 1 9 8 3 s u i tf o r d am a g e s , f

i l e d i n2 0 0 4 , i s thu s t i m e l y. Whil e the “ proce dural” versus “ substantive” due pr ocess distinction does not aff ect the 7 outcome of this ca se, it might, in a futur e ca se, be significant in lig ht of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. C t. 1908 (1981), over ruled in par

t by Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330-31, 106 S. Ct. at 664, and Z inermon v. B urch, 494 U .S. 113, 110 S. C t. 975 (1990). In j ury fl o wi n g fr o ma p ro ce d

ura l d u e p ro ce s s v i o l at i o n(i . e. , i n carc er at i o nfo l l o wi n g a 8 c on sti tut ion a lly

un fa ir tr ia l) that r e su lts fr om a

pr os e c uto r’ s f

a ilure to c omp ly

wi th t he B ra dy ru le cannot be redr essed by

a civil damag es ac tion ag ainst the prosec utor under §1983 be cause the prosec utor is absolutely

immune from such liability . See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U .S. 409, 427, 430, 96 S. Ct . 984, 993, 995 (1976) (prosec utors entitled to absolute immunit y from suit when eng ag ed in “a ctivities . . . inti mately associate d with the judicial phase of the cr iminal process,” 22 dam ag es a ga ins t F ai rb an ks. 6 It is unne ce ssary

in thi s c as e to d et er

m ine w he the r Po rt er ’ s c la im sounds in pr oc edur al or s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s. Thatis be cau se , as d is cu ss edbe lo w, we 7 w oul d r ea chthe sam e re sul t us ing the sam e an al y sis r eg ar dle ss o f howthe c la im is ch ar ac te ri ze d. B. T he L ev el of

Cu lpa bil ity N ec es sary

to Su bj ec t a L awE nf or ce m en t O ff

ic ia l t o §1 983 L ia bil ity f or Ca usi ng a Br ady V iol at ion I n th e cr im ina l or

ha be as c ont ex t, apr ose cu tor ’ s c ulp ab ili ty is ir re le vant f or pur pose s of de m onstratin g apr oc ed

ur al due pr oc es s vi olatio n ba se d onaBr ady nond isc los ur e. T ha t i s, ade fe ndant e sta bli she s aBr ady

vio la tio n inthe c ri m ina l or 8even though, in some instances, “ this im munity does leave the g enuinely wrong ed def

endant without civil redress a g ainst a prose cutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of lib e rt y” ); se e a lso B ro am v. B og an, 32 0 F .3 d 1 02 3, 10 30 (9 th C ir . 2 00 3) (p ro se c uto r’ s f a ilure to c omp ly wi th B ra dy

ru le inv olv e s “ an e xer c ise of the pr os e c uto ri a l f

un c tio n a nd e nti tle s [hi m] to absolute immunity

from a c ivil sui t for dama g es”) ; L ongv. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999); Fullman v. Gr addick, 739 F .2d 553, 558-59 (11th Cir. 1984). 23 habe as c ont ex t whe ne ve r he c ansho wthat f av or ab le e vid en ce m at er ia l t o hi s c as e was no t d is cl os edto th e d efen se , “ irr es pe ct iv e of t

he goo d fa ith or b ad f

ait h of the prosecution .” Bra dy , 373 U. S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1197 (em phasis add ed); see Strickler v. G reene, 527 U.S . 263, 288, 119 S. Ct. 1936 , 1952 (1999) (“ [U ] nder Br ady an in adve rt en t no ndi sc los ur e ha s th e sam e im pa ct on the f ai rn es s of the pr oc ee din gs a s de lib er at e co nc ea lm en t” ); A gur s, 427 U . S. a t 11 0, 96 S . Ct . a t 24 01 (“ If the sup pr es sio n of

e vid en ce r es ult s inc onst itu tio na l e rr or , it is be ca use of the ch ar ac te r of

the e vid en ce , not

the c hara ct er

of the pr ose cu tor ”) . T he Br ady r ule thus im poses a no-fault standard of care on the prosecuto r. If favorable, m aterial ev ide nc e ex cl usi ve ly

in the hands of

the pr ose cu tio n te am

f ai ls t o r ea chthe de fe nse — f or w ha te ve r re as on —

and the de fe ndant i s su

bse que ntl y

c onvi ct ed , the pr ose cu tio n is c harg ed

w ithaBr ady

vio la tio n, and the de fe ndant i s e nti tle d to a ne wtr ia l. I t i s th is n o- fa

ult standard of c ar e that P orte r say s sh oul d a ppl y to Fairbanks in this § 1983 suit for dam ages. While Porter a lleges alternatively that Fa ir banks’ s f ai lur e to d isc los e w as int en tio na l, he ne ve rthe le ss arg ue s th at int en t doe s no t m atte r be ca

use F ai rb an ks m ay

be he ld l ia

ble in dam ag es r eg ar dle ss o f his24

cu lpa bil ity . P orte r Br . a t 21 ( “ Si nc e Br ady c la im s do not

c ont ai n asub

j ec tiv e com ponent , whether D etective Fa irbanks acted intentio nally is irrelevant”) . T o su ppor t hi s arg um en t tha t a

no- fa ult standard of c ar e shou ld a

ppl y to Fa ir banks in the §19 83 c ont ex t, P orte r re as ons as f oll ow s: ( 1) aBr ady

vio la tio n is a du e p r o c e s s d e p r i v a t i o n ; ( 2 ) B r a dy m a y b e v i o l a t e dwi t h o u tr e g a r dt o c u l p ab i l i t y; (3) McMillian holds that su ch a due process deprivation m ay be redre ssed und er §198 3; (4) §1983 contains no state-of-m ind requirem ent independ ent of that necessary to viol ate the underly ing cons titutio nal provisi on; (5) Fairbanks caused the und er ly ing Br ady

vio la tio n; and thus (6 ) unde r §198 3, F ai rb an ks m ay be he ld li ab le fora du e p ro ces s d ep riv at io n wi th ou t re ga rdto hi s cu lp ab il it y . W e d is ag ree. W e re j ec t this r ea soni ng a s in co nsi ste nt w ithS upr em e Co ur t pr ec ed en t. W e hol d that the no- fa

ult standard of c ar e Br ady

im pose s onpr ose cu tor s inthe c ri m ina l or habe as c ont ex t ha s no pla ce in a §198 3 dam ag es a ct iona ga ins t a lawe nf or ce m en t of fi ci al in w hic h th e pla int if f al le ge s avio la tio n of

due pr oc es s. Po rt er ’ s arg um en t i s r ed

uc ed to the f oll ow ing pr opos iti on: be ca use the Su pr em e Co urt i n B ra dy

he ld tha t a

due pr oc es s vi olatio n oc curs w ith out r eg ar d to good or ba d f ai th, and b ec au se P orte r ha s a sse rt ed aBr ady c la im , he sho uld

not be re qui re d to sho wthat F ai rb an ks a ct ed w ithany le ve l of c ulp ab ili ty . T he f

lawin Po rt er ’ s arg um en t i s th at

his c la im is not a pure Br ady

claim . As our McM illianSee Jean, 221 F.3d at 659 (Wil kinson, C.J ., concur ring ) (discussingthe ca se law e x tant 9 as of 2000) . 25 o p i n i o n p o i n t e do u t , th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l du t y d e s c r i b e db y B r a dy an di t s p r o g e n y — the duty to dis cl ose f

av or ab le , m at er ia l e vid en ce to the de fe nse — i s im pose d on the pros ec uto r . S ee Je an , 221 F . 3d at 66 0 ( W ilk ins on, C. J. , c onc ur ri ng) ( statin g that “ to s pe ak

of the duty bin din g po lic e of

fi ce rs a s aBr ady

duty is sim ply inc or re ct , ” an d po int ing to Su

pr em e Co urt c as es pla ci ng the duty upo n th e pr ose cu tio n; B ra dy , 373 U . S. a t 87 , 83 S . Ct . a t 11 97; G igl io v . U nit ed S ta te s, 405 U . S. 150 , 154 , 92 S . Ct . 763 , 766 ( 1972 ); Mo or e v. I lli noi s, 408 U . S. 786 , 794 , 92 S. Ct. 2562 , 2568 (1972); Agurs, 427 U. S. at 108, 96 S. Ct. at 2400; United States v. Ba gle y , 473 U . S. 667 , 675 -7 6, 105 S . Ct . 337 5, 337 9- 80 ( 1985 ); K y le s v. Whit le y , 514 U . S. 419 , 437 -3 8, 115 S . Ct . 155 5, 156 7- 68 ( 1995 )) . A lth oughour bin din g pr ec ed en t i n M cM ill ian e sta bli she s th at

the c or re la tiv e duty

on the part

of lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ci al s is to tur

n ov er e xc ulp at or

y e vid en ce to the pr ose cu tio n, 88 F . 3d at 15 67, ne ith er

Mc Mi lli annor

any oth er bin din g pr ec ed en t e la

bor at es on 9 the scope of that duty . For exam ple, a lthou gh McMillian didhold th at the lawwa s cl earl y e sta bli she d a s of

198 7 and 1 988 that a

pol ic e of fi ce r ha d aduty

not to int en tio na lly

w ith hol d e xc ulp at or

y e vid en ce f

ro m the pr ose cu tio n, id. a t 15 68- 69, the opin ion di d not add ress w hether less-than-intention al conduct on th e part of aIn a dd iti on to s ho wi ngbr e a c h a

nd inj ur y , Po rt e r m

us t, t o p re va il o n h is § 19 83 c la im, 10 de mon str ate that F a ir

ba nk s c a us e d th e c on sti tut ion a l de pr ivatio n. Se e Tr ou pe v. Sara so ta County , 419 F.3d 1160, 1165 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (“A §1983 c laim require s proof of a n aff irmative causa l connec tion between the defe ndant’s ac ts or omissions and the a lleg ed constitutional deprivation”); see a lso Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Ser vs., 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S. C t. 2018, 2036 (1978) ( “Cong ress did not intend § 1983 liability to attach whe re [] causation [i ]s absent”). 26 pol ic e of fi ce r w oul d vi olate the duty . S ee sup ra n. 5. T hus, it is fo r the a lle ge d br ea chof thi s c or re la tiv e duty

— F ai rb an ks’ s du ty as alawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ci al to tur

n ov er e xc ulp at or

y e vid en ce to the pr ose cu tio n — and the los s of

li be rty r es ult ing the re fr om , that P orte r m ust be de em ed

to be se ek ing c om

pe nsatio n inthi s c as e. W e ad dr es s a s am atte r of f ir st i m pr es sio n w he the r Po rt er

m ust de m onstrate that F ai rb an ks a ct ed w ithale ve l of

c ulp ab ili ty consist ing of m ore than m ere negligence. 10 Po rt er ’ s a lle ga tio n inthi s §1 983 ac tio n — that F ai rb an ks’ s f

ai lur e to d isc los e the pol ic e re ports t o th e pr ose cu tio n c au se d th e de nia l of his due pr oc es s r igh t t o a fai r tr ia l —

am ou nt s t o a n a ll eg at io n t ha t Fa irb an ks co m m it te d aco ns ti tu ti on al to rt. Se e 42 U . S. C. §19 83 ( “ E ve ry pe rs on who, [ unde r co lor of state law ] , sub

j ec ts, or ca use s to be sub

j ec te d, any

c iti ze n of

the U nit ed

S ta te s . . . to the de pr ivatio n of any rights . . . secured by

the Constitu tion . . . shall be liable to the party injure d”); see al so M em phi s C m ty . S ch . D ist . v. S ta chur a, 477 U . S. 299 , 305 -0 6, 106 S . Ct . 253 7, 2542 ( 1986 ) (“ W e have r ep eate dly not ed that 42 U . S. C. §19 83 c re at es aspe ci es of tort l ia bil ity in favor of pe rs ons w ho are de pr ive d of r igh ts, pr ivi le ge s, or27

im m uni tie s se cure d to the m

by the Co nst itu tio n” ) (c itatio ns and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m arks om itted); City

of Monterey

v. D el Monte Dunes at Monterey , L td., 526 U.S . 687, 727 , 119 S . Ct . 162 4, 164 7 ( 1999 ) (“ T he re is no d oubt that the c au se of

a ct ion crea te d b y

§1 98 3 i s, an d was alwa y s re ga rd edas, ato rt c la im ”) (Sc al ia , J., co nc ur ri ng) . T his is re fl ec te d inpart by the na tur e of

the r el ie f Po rt er

se ek s inhis co m pla int — m one tary

c om pe nsatio n su ff

ic ie nt t o m ak e him

w hol e fo r the y ears he spe nt i n pr iso n f

oll ow ing his 198 8 c onvi ct ion . S ee Co m pl. ¶ 1 ( “ T his is ana ct ion fo r dam ag es to co m

pe nsate Mi ch ae l D . P orte r fo r the f if te eny ears he spe nt i n Fl or ida j ai ls and p ri sons a ft er

he w as . . . w ro ngf

ull y c onvi ct ed ”) ; se e St ac hur a, 477 U. S. at 306-07, 106 S. Ct. at 2542-43 (“ Punitive dam ages aside, dam ages in tort cases ar e designed to p rovide co m pe nsat ion f

or the inj ur y c au se d to pla int if

f by de fe ndant’ s br ea chof

duty ” an d “ Co ngr es s a dopt ed thi s c om m on- lawsy ste m

of re co ve ry w he n it e sta bli she d li ab ili ty

f or c onst itu tio na l t orts; ” thu s, “ the ba sic pur pose of §19 83 d am ag es is to compensate persons for inju ries that are c au se d by the de pr ivatio n of

c onst itu tio na l r igh ts” ) (c itatio ns and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks om it te d) . N ot e ve ry a ct ionby astate a ct or

that r es ult s ina

los s of li be rty und er the D ue Pr oc es s C lause giv es r ise to lia bil ity und er §19 83. T he S upr em e Co urt, a ddr es sin g the questio n of “ when tortious conduct by state officia ls rises to the level of a28

co nst itu tio na l t ort” f

or pur pose s of an a lle ge d du e pr oc es s vi olatio n, he ld i n D a n i e l s v . Wi l l i a ms th a t“ t h e Du e P r o c e s s C l au s e i s s i mp l y n o ti mp l i c a t e db y a ne gli ge nt a ct of an of fi ci al c au sin g un int en de d lo ss o f or inj ur y to lif e, li be rty , or property .” 474 U. S. 327, 328, 106 S. Ct. 662, 663 (198 6). In so hold ing, the Court in D an ie ls p ar

tia lly ove rr ule d it s de ci sio n inP ar

ratt v. T ay lor , 451 U . S. 527 , 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981), to the extent that Parr att had recognized negligent con duct as su ffi ci en tl y

cu lp ab le to co ns ti tu te a de pr iv at io n u nd er t he Due P ro ces s C la us e. 474 U . S. a t 33 0- 31, 106 S . Ct . a t 66 4. T he Co urt r ei te rate d th at § 19 83 “ co nta ins no s ta te -o f- m ind

r equir em en t i nde pe nde nt o f that ne ce ssary to state avio la tio n of th e u nd erl y in g c on st it ut io na l ri gh t.” Id . at 3 30 , 10 6 S . Ct. at66 4. Beca use the source of the underly ing right allegedly violated in Daniels was the D ue P ro ce ss C lause , the Co urt l ooke d to it s te xt — “ [N ] or sha ll any S ta te de pr ive any

pe rs on o f lif

e, li be rty , or

pr ope rty , w ith out

due pr oc es s of

law ” — t o de te rm ine w he the r that c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n m an da te d apart ic ular le ve l of culpabilit y

as a pre requisite for liability . The C ourt noted th at “ the word ‘ deprive’ in the Due Pr ocess Clause connote[s] m ore than a negligent act,” which, the Court state d, e xpl ai ns why

the guarante e of

due pr oc es s ha s hi sto ri ca lly “be enappl ie d to de lib erate de ci sio ns o f gove rn m en t of fi ci al s. ” I d. a t 33 0, 331 , 106 S . Ct . a t 66 4, 665 (em phasis in original). E m

phasizing the point that m ere negligent conduct29

does not “ wor[ k] a deprivation in th e co nst itu tio nal se nse ,” id. at 330, 106 S. Ct. at 664 (a lte ratio n and e m

pha sis in or igi na l) , the Co urt ha s si nc e state d, c iti ng D an ie ls, that “ the Co nst itu tio n do es not guarante e due c ar e on the part of state of fi ci al s; lia bil ity f or ne gli ge ntl y

inf lic te d harm

is cate gor ic al ly

be ne ath th e thr es hol d of co ns ti tu ti on al du e p ro ces s.” Lewi s, 5 23 U.S. at 8 49 , 11 8 S . Ct. at17 18 . As noted above, w e find it unnecessary in this case to determ ine whether Porter’ s claim

sound s in procedural or substan tive due process. T his is so in part be ca use our c onc lus ionr eg ar din g th e le ve l of c ulp ab ili ty

ne ce ssary

to sus ta in a

due pr oc es s c la im

se ek ing dam ag es a ga ins t a state of fi ci al is not

de pe nde nt o n th e ch ar ac te ri zatio n of

P orte r’ s c la im . I n D av ids on v . Cannon , ac as e de ci de d onthe sam e day a s D an ie ls, the Co urt he ld tha t “ the pr ote ct ion s of the D ue P ro ce ss Cl au se , whether procedur al or su bstan tive , are j ust not tr igg er ed by la ck of due care . ” 474 U . S. 344 , 348 , 106 S . Ct . 668 , 671 ( 1986 ) (e m pha sis a dde d) ; se e L ew is, 523 U . S. a t 84 9, 118 S . Ct . a t 17 18 ( not ing that C annon “ cl ar if [i es ] that D an ie ls applies to su bstantiv e, as w ell as procedural, due process”). O n th e au tho ri ty

of D an ie ls and C annon, w e hol d th at m er e ne gli ge nc e or ina dve rt en ce on the part

of alawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ci al in fa ili ng t o turnove r Br ady m at er ia l t o th e pr ose cu tio n, w hic h intur n c au se s ade fe ndant t o be c onvi ct ed a t a tr ia l tha t do es not

m ee t the f

ai rn es s r equir em en ts i m

pose d by the D ue P ro ce ssWe conclude be low that the evidenc e in this case w ould, at best, support only an 11 infere nce of

mere neg lige nce on the part of F airba nks; theref

ore, like the Court in Daniels, we have no r eason to c onsider whe ther, in the c ontextof a c laim like Porter’s, “some thing less than intentional conduct, such a s rec klessness or ‘gross neg lige nce,’ is enoug h to trigg er the protec tions of the Due Proc ess Clause.” D aniels, 474 U.S. at 334 n.3, 106 S. Ct. at 666 n.3. See Wil son v. Northcutt, 987 F.2d 719, 722- 23 (11th Cir. 1993) (re cognizi ngthe question left open by Da nie ls a nd no tin gthat “ [b]e c a

us e . . . th e a

pp e lle e s’ c on du c t di d n ot r ise to t he le ve l of

g ro ss ne g lig e nc e , w e le ave fo r a no the r d ay

the de te rm inatio n o f whe the r gro ss n e g lig e nc e c an s up po rt a § 1983 [due process] claim”). 30 Cl au se , do es no t am ou nt to a “ de pr iv at io n” in th e co ns ti tu ti on al sen se . Thu s, a ne gli ge nt a ct

or om iss ionc annot

pr ovi de aba sis f

or li ab ili ty in a § 19 83 a ct ion se ek ing c om

pe nsatio n f

or los s of li be rty oc ca sio ne d by

aBr ady vio la tio n. 11

C. Whether Porter

Ha s Produced Evidence S ufficient to Show that Fa ir banks’ s C ondu ct

in thi s C as e w as Mo re than M er el y N eg lig en t an d th at F ai rb an ks’ s C ondu ct

Ca use d th e Br ady

V iol at ion H av ing e sta

bli she d th at

adue pr oc es s c la im

li ke P orte r’ s w ill not

giv e ri se to §198 3 li ab ili ty

in the abse nc e of

som e ev ide nc e of

m or e- than- ne gli ge nt c ondu ct on the part of the defe ndant-law enforc em ent official, we now consider whether Porter ha s pr oduc ed

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to cr eate atr ia ble iss ue of

f ac t w ithr eg ar d to Fairbanks’ s culpabilit y . W e also consider whether Porter has shown an

“ af fi rm at ive c au sa l c onne ct ion ” be tw ee n F ai rb an ks’ s c ondu ct and the de nia l of

due pr oc es s o ccas io ne d b y

th e Bra dy vio la ti on . 1. The K arcinski Report31

Re gard ing the K ar ci nski r ep ort, P orte r’ s c la im a ga ins t F ai rb an ks f

ai ls f or la ck of c au sa tio n. S ee T ro upe , 419 F . 3d at 11 65. T he c au sa l c ha in r el ie d up on b y Po rt er to supp ort hi s du e pr oc es s c la im w ithr es pe ct

to the K ar ci nski r ep ort i s th is: (1 ) Fa ir banks did not giv e the r ep ort t o th e St at e A tto rn ey ’ s O ff ic e, ( 2) the S ta te At t o rn ey’s Of

fi ce th er ef

o re n ev erh adth e r ep o rt , ( 3 ) b ec au s e t h e S t at e A t t o rn ey’s O ff ic e ne ve r ha d th e re port, it c oul d no t di sc los e it to P orte r’ s de fe nse , and ( 4) be ca use the r ep ort w as not

dis cl ose d to his de fe nse , P orte r w as de nie d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh t t o af

ai r tr ia l. Ar ev ie wof

the r ec or d, how ev er , c onc lus ive ly de m onstrate s th at

the se co nd l ink

in Po rt er ’ s c au sa l c ha in i s m iss ing . T he undi sput ed

e vid en ce sho w s th at

the K ar ci nski r ep ort w as in fa ct in poss es sio n of the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e pr ior to Po rt er ’ s tr ia l i n Augus t 19 88. A cc or din gly , the re co rd m ak es pla in tha t the r ep ort w as tur ne d ov er to the pr ose cu tio n by

F ai rb an ks or som eo ne e lse , and thus any f ai lur e to d isc los e the r ep ort t o P orte r’ s de fe nse pr ior to tri al was n eces sa ril y

cau se d b y

th e p ro se cu ti on , no t Fa irb an ks . K ar ci nski gave te sti m ony a t a de posi tio n inF eb ru ar

y 198 8, som e six m onths be fo re P orte r’ s tr ia l. T he tr an sc ri pt o f that de posi tio n is part of the r ec or d inthi s case. Four individuals wer e present at the deposition : (1) K arcinski, ( 2) Car l John sto n, an A ssi stant S ta te A tto rn ey w ho c ove re d th e de posi tio n f or Mansf ie ld, (3) McMillan, the Assistant Public Def ender w ho hand led Porter’ s defense for a32

brief per iod of tim e during the dis covery phase of the proceedings, and (4) a court re porte r. A t the ti m e of

the 198 8 de posi tio n, K ar ci nski w as no l onge r em plo y ed by the P as co Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e an d, a s ar es ult , ha d no t ha d an op portun ity to rev ie w any po li ce re po rts — i nc lu di ng hi s o wn — in pre pa rat io n fo r hi s t es ti m on y . T he pol ic e re port K ar ci nski pr ep ar ed on the nig ht o f the a tta ck is the onl y

one he pr ep ar ed in co nne ct ionw iththe c as e. K ar ci nski ha s gi ve n un dis put ed de posi tio n te sti m ony in thi s c as e that he did

not have ac opy

of his pol ic e re port w ithhim w he n he w en t i nto the 198 8 de posi tio n. D ur ing que sti oni ng at the 198 8 de posi tio n, K ar ci nski ha d tr oubl e rem em bering specific details about th e inform ation Young h ad given him at the gas statio n inthe e ar ly

m or nin g ho ur s f

oll ow ing the a tta ck . About ha lf w ay thr oughthe deposit ion, Johns ton — the Assistant State Attorney — asked Karcinski: “ Is that y our r ep ort?” K ar ci nski r es pond ed a ff irm at ive ly : “ U h- huh. ” Joh nst on the n sa id t o McMillan: “ Do y ou want to give him an opportu nity

to reviewit? ” T o which McMillan responded: “ That’ s fine w ith m e. ” T he parties then we nt off the rec ord w hil e K ar ci nski r ev ie w ed his r ep ort. K ar ci nski c oul d no t r ec al l at hi s de posi tio n in t h i s c a s e w h i c ho f

th e tw o a t t o rn e ys h a n d e dh i m th e r e p o rt ; b u ti tw a s o n e o f th e m. Ba ck on the r ec or d, Mc Mi llan st at ed : “ T he e x- de puty ha s ha d ac hanc e to re vie whis r ep ort. . . . ” Mc Mi llan th enw en t onto as k K ar ci nski if , ba se d onhis33

re vie wof the r ep ort, he ha d anythi ng f ur the r to a dd t o hi s pr ior

te sti m ony

r eg ar din g the inform ation he gathered from Young. K arcinski testified that he rem em bered m or e of the de ta ils of

the a tta ck , but

“ [o ] the r than th at , I c an ’ t r ec al l any oth er , y ou know , a ct ua l st at em en ts s he ha d m ad e. . . . [ S] he w as pr etty m uc h inastate of shoc k. ” K ar ci nski did

not vol unt ee r any

inf orm at ionabout

the phy sic al de sc ri pti on of th e at ta ck er Yo un g g av e h im at t he ga s s ta ti on , whi ch was i nc lu de d i n t he rep or t. Instead, w ith regard to the description gi ven by Young, K arcinski stated: “ She had m en tio ne d th at

it w as dark , she w as gr ab be d f ro m be hin d, and tha t sh e did

not ge t a good loo k a t the pe rs on who, y ou know— . ” Cu tti ng K ar ci nski of f, Mc Mi llan sa id he ha d no f

urthe r que sti ons, and the de posi tio n c onc lud ed . Mc Mi llan, a t a

de posi tio n gi ve n inc onne ct ionw iththi s c as e, te sti fi ed that he did not r em em be r obt ai nin g ac opy

of K ar ci nski ’ s r ep ort be fo re the 198 8 de posi tio n and tha t he did not r em em be r re vie w ing the r ep ort whil e the de posi tio n w as und er

w ay . Mc Mi llan f

urthe r te sti fi ed

that, if he ha d r ec ei ve d or

r ev ie w ed the re port, he w oul d have que sti one d K ar ci nski about the phy sic al de sc ri pti on Y oung gave him a t the ga s st at ion— a

de sc ri pti on tha t, a ga in, K ar ci nski f ai le d to m en tio n du r i n g th e d e p o s i t i o n . I n th e s u mmary- j u d g me n tp o s tu r e o f

th i s c a s e , w e a s s u me Mc Mi llan is c or

re ct w he n he say s th at

he ne ve r sawthe K ar ci nski r ep ort. W e m ust the re fo re a ssum e that M cM ill andid not c ar ry the K ar ci nski r ep ort i nto the 198 834

de posi tio n. T ha t l eave s Jo hnst on a s th e onl y ind ivi dua l pr es en t who c oul d have br ough t K ar ci nski ’ s r ep ort t o th e de posi tio n. Joh nst on h as not giv ente sti m ony

in th is cas e. W ithr es pe ct

to Po rt er ’ s c la im

a ga ins t F ai rb an ks, it

is ir re le vant whe the r or not Mc Mi llan e ve r sawac opy of the K ar ci nski r ep ort. T o e sta bli sh the

“ affir m ative causal connection” betwee n Fairbanks and the alleged constit ution al vio la tio n, a s r equir ed

by T ro upe , 419 F . 3d at 11 65, P orte r w oul d have to showboth that F ai rb an ks w ith he ld the K ar ci nski r ep ort f ro m the pr ose cu tio n and tha t the p r o s e c u t i o n d i dn o to b t a i n th e r e p o rtf r o m an yo n e e l s e . Th e f

o c u s o f o u r i n qu i ry, the n, is on whe the r the pr ose cu tio n r ec ei ve d th e re port. T he tr an sc ri pt o f the 198 8 deposit ion — coup led with K arcinski’ s undi sputed test im ony that he did no t carr

y the r ep ort t o th e de posi tio n and o ur a ssum pti on tha t M cM ill anc oul d no t have don e so e ith er ( be ca use he ne ve r sawit ) — m ak es c le ar that Jo hnst on, the A ssi stant S ta te A tto rn ey , ha d po sse ssi on o f the r ep ort at the ti m e of the de posi tio n. G ive n th e undi sput ed

state of the r ec or d, it

is im poss ibl e to s ay

that any a ct or om iss ionby Fairbanks caused the prosecution no t to receive the K arcinski report. It is theref ore im poss ibl e to s ay , w ithr es pe ct to thi s r ep ort, that F ai rb an ks’ s c ondu ct c au se d th e Br ady vio la tio n. R athe r, it

appe ar s th at

the pr ose cu tio n ha d po sse ssi on o f the report, but th at som ew here a long the way the report fa iled to reach the defe nse,35

thu s gi vin g r ise to the Br ady vio la tio n. 2. The H endrickson Report Po rt er arg ue s th at

the f oll ow ing f

ac ts w oul d pe rm it a re as ona ble j ur or to inf er that F ai rb an ks i nte nti ona lly w ith he ld the H en dr ic ksonr ep ort f ro m the pr ose cu tio n: (1) that D etective Fa irbanks had th e H endrickson . . . report[] before the Michael Porter

trial in 1988; (2) that D etective Fa irbanks was re qui re d by

P CS O pol ic y

to tur n ov er [ that r ep ort] to the S ta te Attorney ’ s Of

fice; ( 3) that De tective Fair banks un derstood h e w as re qui re d by

P CS O pol ic y

to tur n ov er [ that r ep ort] to the S ta te Attorney ’ s Of

fice; and (4) that [the H endrickson report] w[ as] in fact never turned over to the State A ttorney ’ s Of fice. Po rt er Br . a t 25 . W e dis ag re e. W e have m et ic ulo usl y c om be d th e re co rd

and h av e fo und no e vid en ce — b ey ond the e vid en ce a s sum m ar iz ed in Po rt er ’ s own br ie f an d be y ond his c onc lus or

y a lle ga tio ns —

to bol ste r Po rt er ’ s a sse rt ionthat F ai rb an ks in te nt io na ll y

wit hh el d t he Hend ric ks on rep or t fr om th e p ro se cu ti on . T he str onge st p er

m iss ibl e inf

er en ce that on e m igh t c onc ei vably dr awf ro m these facts is that the H endrickson report failed to reach the S tate A ttorney ’ s Of fice on a cc ount

of som e ne gli ge nt a ct

or om iss ionpr ope rl y

attr ibu ta ble to Fa ir

banks, the official char ged with the duty to deliver the police reports to the prosecutio n. E ven that i nf er en ce , how ev er , is doub tf ul g ive n ho wli ttl e any one inv olv ed w iththe investig ation and pros ecution of this case c an rem em ber about the circum stancesIndeed, the re is conside rable doubt that Fair banks or his off

ice wa s even the cause of 12 the def ense’ s non-use of the Hendr ickson repor t. The fa ct that the He ndrickson re port was not located in the public de fende r’s file in 1994 — six y ear s after Porter’s f

irst trial, when F ulgie ri c on du c te d h is i nv e sti g atio n in c onne c tio n w ithPor

te r’ s f e de ra l ha be a s p e tit ion

— is of little probative va lue, bec ause the public defe nder’ s file containe d no police re ports at all, and Porter h a s n e v e r a l l e g e d th ath e d i d

n o tr e c e i v e f

o r u s e attr i a l F a i r

b an k s ’ s r e p o rt , w h i c h , i n c i d e n t a l l y, contains a de scription of Young ’s attac ker at odds with the description Youngg ave K arc inski immediately

followingthe attac k. Assuming that the H endric kson repor t never rea ched Porte r’s tr ia l c ouns e l, D e hn art , th e po ssi ble c a us e s a re se ve ra l — t

he re po rt c ou ld h ave be e n mi sp la c e d in F a i r b an k s ’ s o f

f i c e , i nth e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s o f f i c e , o r i nth e o f f i c e o f P o rt e r ’ s i n i t i a l d e f

e n s e at t o r n e y, McMillan, who conduc ted pre trial discover y , but whose re prese ntation of Porter wa s interrupted three to four we eks bef

ore tria l by

a ser ious ill ness. Moreove r, we know that another police repor t that the defe nse did not g et, the Ka rcinski re port, was in fa ct in the possession of the prosec utor’s off

ice at least six months before trial. Ther e is absolutely no evidenc e sug g esting that th e mis pla c e me nt o f t he He nd ri c ks on re po rt oc c ur re d in F a ir ba nk s’ s o ff ic e , r athe r t

ha n in one of the other two. Althoug h we doubt Porter ha s adduce d sufficie nt evidence on causation with respec t to the Hendric kson repor t, we nee d not rea ch that question in light of our conclusion that, even a ssuming Porter c ould demonstrate c ausation, there is no evidence that Fa irbanks eng ag ed in any

more-tha n-neg lige nt conduct. 36 sur ro undi ng the handl ing of thi s r ep ort. E ve n a ssum ing that the H en dr ic kson

12 report w as m isplaced by

negligence in Fairbanks’ s office, however tenuou s that as su m pt io n, t he re i s n o e vi de nc e o f il l-wi ll or m ot iv e o n t he pa rt o f Fai rb an ks . Indeed, ther e is absolutelyno evidence from which a j ury

could reasonably

infer int en t t o w ith hol d, r ec kle ssn es s, or anythi ng m or e than m er e ne gli ge nc e. B ec au se Po rt er is una ble to showthat the H en dr ic ksonr ep ort f ai le d to r ea chthe S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e as ac onse que nc e of

som e m or e- than- ne gli ge nt a ct or om iss ion on th e p artof F ai rb an ks , we m us t re ject h is du e p ro ces s cl ai m . IV. CONCLUSION W e conclude that Porter has f ailed to create a genuine issue of m aterial f act37

on h is d ue pr oc es s c la im

a ga ins t F ai rb an ks. B ec au se P orte r’ s c la im a ga ins t Fa ir banks fa ils on the m er its , w e ne ed not r ea chthe se co nd p ro ng o f the qua lif ie dim m unityanaly sis. Se e Fe rrar o, 284 F.3d at 1194; see also Saucier, 533 U.S . at 201, 121 S . Ct . a t 21 56. O ur c onc lus ionthat F ai rb an ks d id n ot v iol at e Po rt er ’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts m eans tha t P orte r’ s c la im s a ga ins t Whit e fa il. S ee L os Ange le s v. H el le r, 475 U . S. 796 , 799 , 106 S . Ct . 157 1, 157 3 ( 1986 ); se e al so R oone y v. Wa t s o n , 1 0 1 F . 3 d1 3 7 8 , 1 3 8 1 - 8 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ; Vi n e yar dv . C o u n t y o f M u rr a y, G a. , 990 F . 2d 1 207, 121 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) . A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

irm ed . AFFIR MED.