# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 24 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Geral d Lee Jo hn so n; Sh el ly Joh ns on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Mi ke Mo od y , et al

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 14 , 20 18
Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 10 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

At th e t i me in qu es ti on , Geral d Jo hn so n was a sp eci al ed uc at io n te ach er at

Ro os ev el t Hig h Sch oo l in De s M o i n e s , Io wa. On Decem be r 4, 20 15

, St ud en t C.P.

al le ge d t ha t J oh ns on ha d c al le d h er i nt o h is cla ss ro om th e da y be fo re t o d is cu ss he r

gr ad es an d at te nd an ce is su es an d, du rin g th e m eet in g, lo ck ed th e do or a n d to uc he d

he r in ap pr op ria te ly. On Ja nu ary 19

, 20 16

, Jo hn so n was ch arg ed in Io wa St at e Co ur t

wit h S ex ua l Ex pl oi ta ti on by a Scho ol Em pl oyee an d Ass au lt wit h Int en t to Co m m itSex ua l Abu se

. See Io wa Co de §§ 70 9.1 5( 3) (a)( 1)

, (5 )(a)

, 70 9.1 1( 3)

. Afte r th e st at e

co ur t su pp res se d ev id en ce de riv ed fro m sc ho ol su rv ei ll an ce vi de os th at ha d no t be en

pr es erv ed , th e p ro se cu ti on di sm is se d t he ch arg es

.

Jo hn so n an d hi s wife th en fil ed th is la wsu it in Io wa Dis tri ct Co ur t ag ai ns t two

m em be rs of th e Des Mo in es Po li ce Dep art m en t who in ve st ig at ed C.P.’s al le ga ti on , Offi cer Mi k e Mo od y an d Dete ct iv e Bri an Mat hi s; Des Mo in es Po li ce Ch ie f Dan a

W in ge rt; an d th e C it y of Des Mo in es , Io wa. As rel ev an t he re, Pl ai nt iff s as se rt 42 1

U.S.C. § 19 83 cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e of fic ers in di vi du al ly an d th e Ci ty fo r vi o l a t i o n of

Jo hn so n’s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht s an d Io wa st at e la w

cl ai m s of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , ne gl ig en t hi rin g an d su pe rv is io n, res po nd eat

su pe rio r, an d l os s o f sp ou sa l co ns or ti um

.

Defen da nt s rem ov ed th e act io n a nd pr om pt ly m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t,

rel y in g pr im ari ly on as se rte d is su es of la w, qu al ifi ed im m un it y an d co ll at eral

es to pp el

. Pl ai nt iff

s fil ed a br ie f res is ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t an d req ue st in g de ferr al

o f a ru li ng un ti l th e sc he du le d cl os e of di sc ov ery so m e m on th s la te r. Pl ai nt i f f s

at ta ch ed a Decl arat io n of co un se l un de r Ru le 56 (d ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l

Pro ced ur e (fo rm erl y ru l e 5 6 (f)) de sc rib in g th e di sc ov ery th ey “ an ti ci pa te d

co nd uc ti ng .” Afte r he ari ng or al arg um en t, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red a le ng th y or de r 2

gr an ti ng s u mm a r y jud gm en t in fav or of th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s an d th e Ci ty an d

de nyin g t he req ue st for ad di ti on al di sc ov ery. Jo hn so n v. Mo od y , No . 4 :1 6- cv -4 49

, Ord er (S. D. Io wa Ju ne 15

, 20 17 ). Pl ai nt iff s ap pe al

, arg ui ng on ly th at th e di st ric t

c o ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g th ei r req ue st fo r ti m e to co nd uc t di sc o v e r y

Pl ai nt iff s al so as se rte d cl ai m s ag ai ns t Des Mo in es Pu bl ic Sch oo ls de fen da nt s, 1

whi ch were di sm is se d an d are no t at is su e, an d a Jo hn Doe de fen da n t who req ui res

no ad di ti on al di sc us si on gi ve n o ur di sp os it io n o f th e ap pe al

.

The Hon or ab le Reb ecca Goo dg am e Ebi ng er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r 2

th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-be fo re gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e Defen da nt s. Rev ie win g th e de ni al of th ei r

Ru le 56 (d ) req ue st fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, we affi rm

. Tob en v. Bri dg e st on e Ret ai l
Ope rat io ns , LLC, 75 1 F .3d 88 8, 8 94 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

I. Ba ck gr ou nd.

W e wil l li m it th is se ct io n t o th e fact s (ta ke n in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

Pl ai nt iff s as su m m ary jud gm en t no n- m ov in g pa rti es ) an d th e po rti on s of the ex te ns iv e

pr oc ed ur al hi st or y of th e di sp ut e th at are rel ev an t to th e on ly is su e on ap pe al

, whe th er

th e di st ric t c o ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Pl ai nt iff s’ Ru le 56 (d ) req ue st fo r

ad di ti on al di sc ov ery.

A. Sta te Cou rt Pro ceed in gs

. Afte r C.P. m ad e he r al le ga ti on , Offi cer Mo od y

an d Dete ct iv e Mat hi s in te rv ie wed C.P. an d h e r mo t h er, at te m pt ed to in te rv ie w

Jo hn so n, vi ewed ex te ns iv e su rv ei ll an ce vi de os of th e sc ho ol ha ll way s on th e da y of

th e in ci de nt

, an d rev ie wed te xt m es sa ge s fro m C.P. to a fri en d an d to he r m ot he r.

The ir req ue st th at th e sc ho ol sa ve al l vi de os fro m th at da y was m is ha nd le d, an d C.P.

de le te d he r te xt m es sa ge s be fo re th ey were fu ll y pr es erv ed

. Onl y no te s of th e vi de os

an d sc reen -s ho t im ag es of th e te xt m es sa ge s ta ke n by Dete ct iv e Mat hi s were

pr es erv ed an d av ai la bl e as ev id en ce fo r th e cri m in al pr oc eed i ng s; Jo hn so n ne ve r

vi ewed an y

po rti on of t he vi de o a nd rev ie wed on ly por ti on s o f th e te xt m es sa ge s.

Jo hn so n m ov ed to di sm is s th e ch arg es , al le gi ng th at “ th e St at e i n t e n ti on al ly

an d/ or reck le ss ly fai le d to pr es erv e ex cu lp at or y v i d e o ev id en ce th at it kn ew was

cri ti cal to Jo hn so n’s de fen se .” Afte r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng at whi ch Mo od y , Mat hi s,

an d ot he rs te st ifi ed an d were c r o s s ex am in ed by J oh ns on ’s a tt or ne y , t he st at e co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io n to di sm is s be cau se it di d no t f in d “ an y in te nt io na l de st ru ct io n of

ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce by la w en fo rcem en t,” “ an y ba d fai th on th e pa rt of th e po li ce,”

n o r “ an y act io ns by t he po li ce to in te nt io na ll y an d/ or reck le ss ly fai l to pr es erv e t h e

ex cu lp at or y

vi de o e vi de nc e.”

-3

-Jo hn so n th en m ov ed to su pp res s th e vi de o an d te xt m es sa ge ev id en ce, arg ui ng

t h a t a ll owi ng th e pr os ecu ti on to ad m it on ly pa rti al ev id en ce wou ld vi ol at e hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s un de r th e Fi fth

, Si xt h, an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts by de nyin g

h i m t h e a bi li ty to refu te th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t hi m

. The st at e co ur t su pp res se d t h e

vi de o ev id en ce, co nc lu di ng th at al lo win g th e St at e to pr es en t ev id en ce th e de fen da nt

was un ab le to rev ie w “ wou ld be gr os sl y un fai r” an d wou ld de pr iv e th e de fen da nt of

hi s rig ht to m ean in gf

ul cro ss -ex am in at io n. It de cl in ed to su pp res s te xt m es sa ge s th at

ha d be en pr es erv ed

. The co ur t “ reaf fir m [ed ] th at th e ev id en ce was no t lo st du e to an y

ba d act on th e pa rt of la w en fo rcem en t.” The pr os ecu ti on th en di sm is se d th e ch arg es

be cau se “ th e St at e [d id ] no t b el ie ve it [co ul d] pro ve th e Defen da nt ’s gu il t b ey on d a

reas on ab le do ub t an d [d id ] no t be li ev e it [was ] ap pr op ria te to pr oc eed wit h a tri al at [th at ] ti m e.”

B. Dis tri ct Cou rt Pro ceed in gs

. Pl ai nt iff s’ Seco nd Am en de d Co m pl ai nt

in cl ud ed de ta il ed fact al le ga ti on s as se rti ng th at Defen da nt s “ f a i l e d t o co nd uc t a

pr op er in ve st ig at io n,” ne gl ig en tl y de st ro y ed th e school sur ve ill an ce vid eo s, an d fa ile d

to pr es erv e te xt m es sa ge s be fo re C.P. de le te d th em. Th e C om pl ai nt th en as se rte d

m ul ti pl e c l a i ms ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d Po li ce Dep art m en t Defen da nt s. At is su e he re

are:

- § 19 83 cl ai m s th at in ve st ig at in g of fic ers Mo od y an d Mat hi s p r o v i d e d t he

pr os ecu to r “ wit h m is in fo rm at io n, co nc eal ed ex cu lp at or y e vi de nc e, [] ot he rwis e

en ga ge d in ba d fai th co nd uc t th at was act iv el y in st ru m en ta l in cau si ng th e in it ia ti on

an d co nt in ua ti on of th e pr os ecu ti on ,” an d reck le ss ly di sr eg ard ed Jo hn so n’s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s “ by fai li ng to pr op erl y an d su ffi ci en tl y in ve st ig at e [C.P.’s] fal se

al le ga ti on s” (Co un t I) ;

- § 19 83 cl ai m s th at Po li ce Ch ie f W in ge rt an d th e Ci ty are li ab le fo r Jo hn so n’s

in juri es be cau se th ei r po li ci es an d pr act ic es , in cl ud in g fail ur e to tra in an d su pe rv is e

th e in ve st ig at or s, ca us ed th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns (Co un t II );

-4

-- I o wa st at e la w cl ai m s th at Offi cer Mo od y an d Dete ct iv e Mat hi s su bje c t e d

Jo hn so n to m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se (Co un t III); Ch ie f W in ge rt 3

an d th e Ci ty ne gl ig en tl y hi red

, ret ai ne d, an d su pe rv is ed Mo od y an d Mat hi s (Co un t IV); th e Ci ty is li ab le un de r th e do ct rin e of res po nd eat su pe rio r fo r co nd uc t an d

om is si on s of Mo od y an d Mat hi s th at cau se d Pl ai nt iff s in juri es (Co un t VII); an d lo ss

of sp ou sa l co ns or ti um res ul ti ng fro m th e to rti ou s act io ns al le ge d in Co un ts I, II, III,

IV, an d VII (Co un t IX).

Defen da nt s rem ov ed t he act io n to fed eral co ur t an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

Pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n to rem an d in Aug us t 20 16

. In la te Decem be r , th e co ur t is su ed a

Sch ed ul in g Ord er se tt in g a di sc ov ery de ad li ne of Octo be r 2, 20 17

. In Ja nu ary 20 17

, th e Ci ty an d Po li ce Dep art m en t Defen da nt s fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary ju d gm en t,

arg ui ng th at th e st at e co ur t’s fin di ng s of no b a d f a i t h or in te nt io na l de st ru ct io n of

ex cu lp at or y ev ide nc e w er e en tit le d to co ll at eral es to pp el pr ecl us iv e effe ct

. The refo re,

th ey arg ue d, Mo od y an d Mat hi s are en ti t l e d to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e § 19 83

cl ai m s of f

a i l ur e to in ve st ig at e an d co nc eal in g ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce, an d Pl ai nt iff s

c an no t pr ov e th ei r § 19 83 su pe rv is or y an d st at e la w cl ai m s as a m at t e r o f l a w

. Defen da nt s su bm it te d ex te ns iv e pl ead in gs an d ot he r do cu m en ts fro m th e st at e co ur t

cri m in al pro ceed in gs wit h t he m ot io n.

Pl ai nt iff s ti m el y res po nd ed by fil in g th ei r Bri ef Res is ti ng Su m m ary Ju dg m en t

an d Req ue st in g Defer ral of Ru li ng un ti l t h e C l o s e o f Dis co ve ry

. W it h th is Bri ef,

Pl ai nt iff s fil ed co un se l’s Ru le 56 (d ) Decl arat io n, av erri ng th at if th ey were gi ve n th e

op po rtu ni ty, th ey

an ti ci pa te d c on du ct in g t he fol lo win g d is co ve ry :

P l a i n t i ffs ad vi se d th e di st ric t co ur t th at Co un t III as se rte d on ly a st at e la w 3

m al ic io us pr os e c u t io n cl ai m

. The re is no cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al
cl ai m of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on

. See Tech n. Ord na nc e, In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 24 4 F.3 d

64 1, 6 50 -5 1 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ).

-5

-a. Tak in g de po si ti on s of al l of th e na m ed pa rti es an d qu es ti on in g th es e

in di vi du al s reg ard in g, in te r al ia

, th ei r kn owl ed ge of ex c u l p a t or y in fo rm at io n in th e cri m in al pr os ecu ti on ag ai ns t Mr. Jo hn so n; whe n th e

pa rti es le a r n e d e xc ul pa to ry in fo rm at io n; ho w de ci si on s were m ad e to
in ve st ig at e th e cas e; co nf or m an ce wi th th e g ov ern in g po li cy ; and th ei r

tra in in g a nd ex pe rie nc e.

b. Obt ai ni ng th e Des Mo in es Po li ce De p a r t m en ts ’ [s ic ] po li ci es

g o v ern in g se xu al as sa ul t in ve st ig at io ns , pr es erv at io n of ev id en ce,

ev al ua ti on of e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce, an d c om m

un ic at io n p ro ces se s.

c. Po te nt ia ll y ret ai ni ng an ex pe rt( s) to op in e on th e st an da rd of care fo r la w en fo rcem en t an d in du st ry -acc ep te d p r a c ti ces fo r pr es erv at io n of

ev id en ce , inv es tig at ion of se xua l as sa ult al lega ti on s, an d co m

m un ic at io n of ex cu lp at or y

ev id en ce.

d. Obt ai ni ng co m

m un ic at io ns se nt or rece iv ed by th e na m ed pa rti es

pe rta in in g to th e cri m in al pr os ecu ti on ag ai ns t Mr. Jo hn so n, in cl ud in g em ai l co rres po nd en ce.

Pl ai nt iff s’ B rie f arg ue d th at (i) Co un t 1 is no t b arre d by co ll at eral es to pp el be cau se

t h e st at e co ur t’s ba d fai th fin di ng was li m it ed to th e fai lu re to pr es erv e th e

su rv ei ll an ce vi de os , whe reas Pl ai nt iff s al le ge Defen da nt s “ pr ov id ed m is in fo rm at io n,

co nc eal ed ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce, fai le d to in ve st i g a te ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce, an d

ge n e r a ll y co nd uc te d a fla wed in ve st ig at io n” ; (ii ) Defen da nt s are no t en ti tl ed to

su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on th e st at e co ur t fil in gs ; an d (ii i) “ Defen da nt s’ rem ai ni ng

ar gum en ts fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t are pr em at ur e.” Pl ai nt iff s’ St at em en t of Add it io na l

Und is pu te d Fact s ad dr es se d th e co ll at eral es to pp el is su e an d Pl ai nt i f fs ’ in te nt to

co nd uc t di sc ov ery bu t pr es en te d no ad di ti on al fact s su pp or ti ng th ei r cl ai m s of ba d

fai th in ve st ig at io n.

In gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d
-- wit ho ut de ci di ng th e

co ll at eral es to pp el is su e -- th at Mo od y an d Mat hi s are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

-6

-on Co un t I be cau se Pl ai nt iff s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at th e in ve s t i g a t or s vi ol at ed

Jo hn so n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by a co ns c i e n c e-s ho ck in g fai lu re to pr op erl y an d

suf fi ci en tly inv es tig at e C. P. ’ s fa ls e al le ga ti on s. Pl ai nt iff s’ su pe rv is or y li ab il it y cla im s

in Co un t II an d res po nd eat su pe rio r cl ai m s in Co un t VII fai l be cau se Pl ai nt iff s fai le d

to es ta bl is h th e in ve st ig at or s’ in di vi du al l i a bi li ty. The Co un t III m al ic io us

pr os ecu ti on cl ai m s fai l be cau se “ Pl ai nt iff s pr es en t no di sp ut e as to whe th er Offi cer

Mo od y or Dete ct iv e Mat hi s act ed wit h m al ic e or la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se .” The Co un t

IV cl ai m s fail fo r la ck of p ro of of a n u nd erl y in g t or t b y

th e em pl oyee in ve st ig at or s.

Co un t IX fai ls be cau se Defen da nt s are no t li ab le to Jo hn so n on an y ot he r cl ai m

. The

di st ric t co ur t t he n d en ie d P la in ti ffs ’ Ru le 56 (d ) req ue st , exp la in in g:

Pl ai nt iff s fai l to de m on st rat e th e fact s th ey se ek in fu rth er di sc ov ery are

es se nt ia l or th at th e fact s th ey se ek ex is t. Dur in g Mr. Jo hn so n’s cri m in al
tri al

, [h e] de po se d Dete ct iv e Mat hi s as pa rt of th e cri m in al cas e. Offi cer Mo od y and D et ec tiv e Ma thi s were ex am in ed an d cro ss -ex am in ed du rin g he ari ng s on M r

. J o h n s on ’s Mo ti on to Dis m is s. The Ci ty Defen da nt s’
in ve st ig at io n ha s be en cl os e d si nc e at le as t Feb ru ary 20 16

. Mu ch of
Pl ai nt iff s’ de si red m at eri al rep res en ts “ sp ecu la ti ve ho pe ” of fin di ng

ev id en ce. “ Mer e sp ecu la ti on th at th ere is so m e rel ev an t ev id en ce no t y et di sc ov ered wil l ne ve r su ffi ce.” Pl ai nt iff s fai l to carr y th ei r bu rd en un de r Ru le 56 (d ) . . . . (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

II . Dis cus si on

.

“ Alt ho ug h d i s c o ve ry ne ed no t be co m pl et e be fo re a cas e is di sm is se d

. . . . R u l e 5 6 [ d ] al lo ws a pa rty to req ue st a de la y in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t if th e

pa rty can m ak e a g oo d fai th sh owi ng th at po st po ne m en t o f th e ru li ng wou ld en ab le

it to di sc ov er ad di ti on a l e v i d e n c e whi ch m ig ht reb ut th e m ov an t’s sh owi ng of th e

ab se nc e of a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact .” Ro bi ns on v. Terex Co rp ., 43 9 F.3 d 46 5,

46 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). To warra nt ti m e fo r ad d i t i o n a l di sc ov ery un de r Ru le 56 (d ),

Pl ai nt iff s m us t sh ow: “ (1 ) th at th ey ha ve se t fo rth in affi da vi t fo rm th e sp eci fic fact s

th at th ey ho pe to el ic it fro m fu rth er di sc ov ery, (2 ) th at th e fact s so ug ht ex is t, an d (3 )

-7

-th at th es e so ug ht -aft er fact s are ‘ess en ti al ’ to res is t th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n.”

Tob en , 75 1 F.3 d at 89 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. As th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, “ Ru le 56 (d )

do es no t co nd on e a fis hi ng ex pe di ti on whe re a pl ai nt iff m erel y ho pe s to u nc ov er

so m e po ss ib le ev id e n c e of un la wfu l co nd uc t.” Id . ( cl ean ed up ). Our rev ie w o f th e

di st ric t co ur t’s wi de di sc ret io n i n dec id in g a 56 (d ) m ot io n is “ ve ry de fere nt ia l.” Id.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y id en tifi ed th e go ve rn in g Ru le 56 (d ) pr in ci pl es ,

so th ere was no erro r of la w am ou nt in g to an ab us e of di sc ret io n. In arg ui ng th e co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n, Pl ai nt iff s em ph as iz e th at Defen da nt s mov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t so on aft er rem ov in g th e cas e an d mo n t h s b e fo re th e sc he du le d cl os e of

di sc ov ery, an d th at Pl ai nt iff s were en ti tl ed to a “ fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty” to di sc ov er

ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce wit hi n Defen da nt s’ po ss es si on rel ev an t to th ei r ba d f ai th

, kn owl ed ge , and in te nt aft er t he th res ho ld co ll at eral est op pe l i ss ue was re so lv ed

.

Pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t ig no res a cri ti cal pr oc ed ur al fact
-- Defen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n in cl ud ed a cl ai m th at th e in di vi du al Po li ce Dep art m en t Defen da nt s

are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m th e § 19 83 da m ag e cl ai m s in Co un ts I an d II.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly em ph as iz ed th at qu al ifi e d i mm u n it y is an

im m un it y fro m su it th at sh ou ld be res ol ve d “ at th e earl ie st po ss ib le st ag e in li ti ga ti on ”

to en su re th at in su bs ta nt ia l da m ag e cl ai m s ag ai ns t go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls are res ol ve d

“ pr io r to di sc ov ery. ” Pear so n v. Cal la ha n, 55 5 U.S. 22 3, 23 1- 32 (2 00 9) (ci ta ti on s an d

qu ot a t i o n s om it te d)

. W he n pl ai nt iff ha s as se rte d a § 19 83 cl ai m req ui rin g pr oo f of

wro ng fu l m ot iv e, an d de fen da nt as se rts a pr e-d is co ve ry cl ai m of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , th e di st ric t co ur t “ m ay in si st th at th e pl ai nt iff pu t fo rw a r d sp eci fic

, no nc on cl us or y

fact ua l al le ga ti on s th at es ta bl is h im pr op er m ot iv e,” “ sh ou ld gi ve pr io rit y to di sc ov ery

co nc ern in g is su es th at be ar up on th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y de fen se ,” a n d ha s “ br oa d

di sc ret io n to ta il or di sc ov ery na rro wly an d to di ct at e th e se qu en ce of di sc ov ery. ”

Crawf or d- El v. Bri tt on , 52 3 U.S. 57 4, 59 8- 60 0 (1 99 8) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. “ [I]f th e

de fen da nt -o ffi ci al ha s m ad e a pr op erl y su pp or te d [s um m ary jud gm en t] m ot io n, th e

-8

-pl ai nt iff

. . . m us t id en ti fy affi rm at iv e ev id en ce fro m whi ch a jury co ul d fin d th at th e pl ai nt iff ha s ca rri ed hi s o r he r bu rd en of p ro vi ng th e p ert in en t m ot iv e.” Id . at 6 00

.

To de feat a m ot io n fo r s u mm a r y jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y , th e pl ai nt iff m

us t pu t f

o r t h f a ct s sh owi ng th at th e of fic er’s co nd uc t vi ol at ed a

co ns ti t u t i o n a l r ig ht

, an d th at th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e

al le ge d m is co nd uc t. Pear so n, 55 5 U.S. at 23 2; se e Harl ow v. Fi tz ge r a ld

, 45 7 U.S.

80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t ha s di sc ret io n to de ci de “ whi ch of th e two pr on gs

of th e qu al ifi ed i mm

u n i t y a na lysis sh ou ld be ad dr es se d fir st in li gh t of th e

ci rcu m st an ces in th e pa rti cu la r cas e at ha nd .” Pear so n, 55 5 U.S. at 23 6. Thu s, whe n

Defen da nt s m ov ed fo r s u mm ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y fo r Mo od y

an d M at hi s, s up po rte d b y th ei r te st im on y

at t he st at e co ur t s up pr es si on he ari ng an d

th e st at e co ur t’s fin di ng -- ho wev er li m it ed
-- of no ba d fai th

, Pl ai nt iff s were req ui red

to res po nd wit h affi rm at iv e ev id en ce of ba d fai th if ba d fai th was an es se nt ia l el em en t

of th ei r Co un t I c la im s.

In Co un t I, Jo hn so n al le ge d th at hi s Fo ur te e n th Am en dm en t rig ht s were

vi ol at ed by Defen da nt s’ reck le ss in ve st ig at io n of th e al le ga ti on s m ad e ag ai ns t hi m by

C.P., in cl ud in g th ei r fai lu re to in ve st ig at e ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce. To es ta bl is h th e

al le ge d du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n, Jo hn so n m us t sh ow th at ea ch in di vi du al de fen da nt

“ in te nt io na ll y or reck le ss ly fai le d to in ve st ig at e, th ereb y sh oc ki ng th e co ns ci en ce.”

Aki ns v. Eppe rly, 58 8 F.3d 11 78

, 11 84 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . This is

a qu es ti on of la w to whi ch we ap pl y a rig or ou s st an da rd

. “ An of fic er’s ne gl ig en t

fai lu re to in ve st ig at e in co ns is te nc ie s or ot he r le ad s is in su ffi ci en t to es ta b l is h

co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g m is co nd uc t.” Id

. Rat he r, “ [w]e ha ve he ld th at t h e f o l l owi ng

ci rcu m st an ces in di cat e reck le ss or in te nt io na l fai lu re to in v e s t i g a t e th at sh oc ks th e

co ns c i e nc e: (1 ) ev id en ce th at th e st at e act or at te m pt ed to co erce or th reat en th e

de fen da nt

, (2 ) ev id en ce th at in ve st ig at or s pu rp os efu ll y ig no red ev id en ce su gg es ti ng

th e de fen da nt ’s in no cen ce, (3 ) ev id en ce of syste m at ic pr es su re to im pl ic at e th e

de fen da nt in th e fac e o f co nt rary evi de nc e.” Id

.

-9

-Here, in res po ns e to Defen da nt s’ qu al ifi ed im m un it y mo t i on , Pl ai nt iff

s

pr es en te d no ev id en ce t e n d i n g to refu te or co nt rad ic t Defen da nt s’ st ro ng ev id en ce

f ro m th e st at e co ur t pr oc eed in gs th at th ei r co nd uc t in in ve st ig at in g C.P.’s s e r i o u s

a l l e g a t io n of se xu al m is co nd uc t, ho wev er qu es ti on ab le or in co m pl et e, was no t

co ns ci ou s- sh oc ki ng be ha vi or as a m at te r of la w. Rat he r, Pl ai nt iff s as ke d th e di st ric t

co ur t to de fer ru li ng on qu al ifi ed im m un it y un ti l aft er th ey su bjec te d Mo od y an d

Mat hi s to ex te ns i v e , b u r d e ns om e di sc ov ery. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n in de nyin g th is req ue st

, co ns is te nt w i t h th e te ach in g of Crawf or d- El v.

Bri tt on an d o th er Su pr em e Co ur t an d c irc ui t co ur t p rece de nt s.

Bas ed on t h e su m

m ary jud gm en t reco rd

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d, as

Pear so n v. Cal la ha n ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed

, th at Mo od y an d Mat hi s were en t i t l ed to

qu al ifi e d i mm

un it y fro m th e Co un t I cl ai m s, no t si m pl y be cau se th e la w was no t

cl earl y es ta bl is he d, bu t be cau se th ei r co nd uc t in in ve st i g at in g di d no t vi ol at e

Jo hn so n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Thi s ru li ng was co ns is te nt wit h ou r de ci si on in Aki ns

v. Epp erl y , an d Pl ai nt iff

s do no t ch al le ng e it on ap pe al

. Evi de nc e th at in ve st ig at or s ig no red fact ua l in co ns is te nc ie s in th e ev id en ce, ne gl ig en tl y fai le d to lo ok in to le ad s,

an d di d no t qu es ti on th e al le ge d vi ct im ’s c r e d i b il it y is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at

th ey in ve st ig at ed in a reck le ss , con sc ie nc e-s ho ck in g m an ne r.

Hav in g de te rm in ed th at th e in di vi du al Po l i ce Dep art m en t Defen da nt s are

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y o n Co un t I, th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ad dr es se d th e

im pa ct of th is de te rm in at io n on Pl ai nt iff s’ ot he r cl ai m s. The co ur t d i s mi s s e d th e

Co un t II su pe r v is or li ab il it y cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ch ie f W in ge rt an d th e Ci ty b ecau se th e

in di vi du al Defen da nt s di d no t vi ol at e Jo hn so n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. See A.H. v. St

. Lou is Ct y ., Mo

., 89 1 F.3 d 72 1, 72 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). It di sm is se d th e Co un t III cl ai m

fo r m al ic io us pro se cu ti on be cau se th ere is no ev id en ce t ha t Def en da nt s M oo dy and

Mat hi s la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se or th at th ey m al ic io us ly br ou gh t th e pr os ecu ti on

. See

Ree d v. Lin n Cty.

, 42 5 N.W .2d 68 4, 68 6 (Io wa App

. 19 88 ). It di sm is se d th e Co un t

IV cl ai m fo r ne gl ig en t hi rin g, r e te nt io n, an d su pe rv is io n fo r la ck of pr oo f of an

-1 0-un de rlyin g t or t by th e em pl oyee in ve st ig at or s. See God ar v . Edward s, 5 88 N.W .2d

70 1, 70 8- 09 (Io wa 19 99 ). Und er Io wa la w, an em pl oyer ha s no res po nd eat su pe rio r

li ab il it y “ un le ss th e em

pl oyee is li ab le ” fo r an un de rlyin g to rt. Dick en s v. Ass oc ia te d

Ane st he si ol og is ts

, P.C., 70 9 N.W .2d 12 2, 12 5 (Io wa 20 06 ). Pl ai nt iff s’ Co un t IX lo ss

of sp ou sa l co ns or ti um fai ls be cau se Defen da nt s are no t li ab le as a m at te r of la w o n

th e ot he r cl ai m s, so no ad di ti on al di sc ov ery was warra nt ed on th is cl ai m

. See, e.g ., Berg fel d v . Uni m in Co rp ., 22 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 9 70 , 98 2- 83 (N.D. Iowa 2 00 2)

.

On th is reco rd

, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Pl ai nt iff s m ad e no Ru le

56 (d ) sh owi ng th at ad di ti on al di sc ov ery wou ld ov ert ur n th es e su m m ary jud gm en t

ru li ng s. Pl ai nt iff

s di d no t req ue st ad di ti on al di sc ov ery fo cu se d on t h e q u a l ifi ed

im m un it y is su e. The di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at Pl ai nt iff s pr e s e n t e d no

ev id en ce refu ti ng D e f

e n da nt s’ sh owi ng of no ba d fai th or co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g

in ve st ig at io n was es se nt ia l in res ol vi ng th e th res ho ld qu al ifi ed im m un it y is su e. And

th at de te rm in at io n p ro ve d t o b e fat al to all of Pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m s aga in st th e Ci ty and

th e Po li ce Dep art m en t D e f e n da nt s as a m at te r of la w. Pl ai nt iff s req ue st ed ti m e to

c o n d uc t wid e-ra ng in g di sc ov ery in to al l as pe ct s of th e in ve st ig at io n an d nu m e r o u s

Po li ce Dep art m en t po li ci es

. Bu t th ey m ad e no sh owi ng (i) th at an y so ug ht -aft er fact s

are es se nt ia l to res is t su m m ary jud gm en t on an y of th ei r cl ai m s, or (ii ) th at an y su ch

ev id en ce actu al ly ex is ts

. Ther efo re, t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in

de nyin g Pl ai nt iff

s’ Ru le 56 (d ) req ue st to de fer it s ru li ng un ti l ad di ti on al di sc ov ery

was co m pl et ed an d i n g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t d is m is si ng all cla im s.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-