Opinion ID: 793983
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims of Brady Violations and Fabrication of Evidence Against Katz

Text: 92 Katz appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity with reference to Plaintiff's allegations of Brady violations and fabrication of evidence. 93 Plaintiff alleges that Katz knowingly withheld the existence of two non-matching head hairs from the recovered pantyhose, or in the alternative, that she withheld knowledge that none of the hairs matched. Plaintiff presents evidence that 7 negroid hairs were recovered from the pantyhose, while Katz's forensic report showed only 5 hairs, all of which Katz matched with Plaintiff. This presents sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff's allegations are correct. The district court agreed. ( See J.A. at 208 ([T]here is a question of whether Defendant Katz's failure to disclose one or two dissimilar head hairs is material. Therefore, this is a question for the jury.).) If Plaintiff's allegations are correct, then Katz deliberately withheld the existence of those two nonmatching hairs. Katz cannot seriously contend that a reasonable [investigator] would not know that such actions were inappropriate and performed in violation of an individual's constitutional . . . rights. Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1005. Yet Katz's sole argument for qualified immunity to this Court is that her failure to disclose, if any, amounts only to negligence. Katz's culpability is an issue of fact for a jury. We cannot entertain Katz's arguments going to disputed issues of material fact on this interlocutory appeal. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151. 94 We similarly cannot entertain Katz's arguments for qualified immunity against Plaintiff's fabrication of evidence claim. Katz argues in the first instance that the district court was wrong to deny her absolute immunity on Plaintiff's fabrication of evidence claim, see supra, but in the alternative, Katz argues that she merits at least qualified immunity against this allegation. The district court did not address the application of qualified immunity to Plaintiff's fabrication of evidence claim against Katz. A review of the record shows that the parties dispute what the evidence shows. Plaintiff's expert reports that Katz's findings are far afield of what any reasonable forensic examiner would find from the evidence; this is sufficient evidence from which a jury might reasonably infer that Katz fabricated her report. The thrust of Katz's argument to this Court, however, is that Plaintiff's evidence at most establishes only a negligent performance of her duties. 8 By arguing that the evidence establishes at most a negligent performance of her duties, Katz is arguing disputed issues of fact to this Court. We cannot entertain Katz's arguments going to disputed issues of material fact on this interlocutory appeal. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151. 9 95