Opinion ID: 2801555
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Qualified Immunity Defenses

Text: In their main brief on appeal, defendants present over fifty pages of conclusory assertions, discursive digressions, and factual contentions largely bereft of record citations or salient organization, all under the rubric of a single argument: The district court erred in denying summary judgment as to the issues of qualified and/or absolute immunity, inasmuch as the court centered its ruling on inadmissible hearsay evidence. The hearsay to which defendants refer are the transcripts of Díaz's testimony in which she recanted her prior trial testimony and described what plaintiffs point to as the coercion, bribes, and coaching that produced her false testimony leading to and presented in the criminal trials. The problem for all appellants other than ADA Redondo is that the district court plainly did not center its qualified immunity ruling on any evidence at all, admissible or not. Rather, it denied their request for summary judgment to the extent that their request was based on qualified immunity defenses under state and federal law for an entirely independent, procedural reason: defendants' failure to explain how the law applied to the facts concerning each defendant. Piling one omission on top of another, defendants fail to develop any argument in their brief on appeal for why the district court erred in finding defendants' confusing -10- and poorly structured motion papers insufficient even to bring forward their defenses. Indeed, defendants' lengthy brief to us makes no mention of the district court's actual grounds for its ruling on the qualified immunity defenses. And even after plaintiffs' opposing brief drew this defalcation to defendants' attention, the reply brief offers no reference to any argument or analysis that belies the district court's conclusion. Instead, defendants merely assert that there was evidence in the record that the district court ignored, which misses the point. We share the district court's frustration with the inadequate briefing submitted on behalf of the defendants. It is black letter law that we deem waived claims not made or claims adverted to in a cursory fashion, unaccompanied by developed argument. Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011); cf. De Araujo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 146, 152–53 (1st Cir. 2006) (petitioner's failure to challenge Board of Immigration Appeal's summary dismissal of his case for failure to file a brief waived his argument on the merits). For this simple reason, we reject the appeal of all defendants to the extent it is predicated on their qualified immunity defenses under federal or state law.11 11 This holding does not mean that all of the remaining claims against all of these defendants will ultimately make it to the factfinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos, 151 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1998) (When a defendant fails on a pretrial qualified immunity claim, he nonetheless can plead qualified -11-