Court Opinion

ID: 9480071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:37:05.59068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:27.944409
License: Public Domain

PELL, Senior Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion because in the posture of the case, as it was presented to us, entry of summary judgment was inappropriate.
Nevertheless, I find it somewhat disturbing that a person may be charged with a crime, proceed through a trial, be convicted, exhaust post-conviction remedies, serve his sentence, and then return to file a § 1983 action for damages against those who were involved as investigative police officers during the proceedings leading to conviction. With the present day proclivity to resort to litigation it would seem to be an attractive avenue for pursuit, i.e., to seek, and hopefully find, some apparent misconduct before or during the trial, not for the purpose of setting aside the conviction and clearing his name, but simply to recover damages.
The majority opinion speaks of not barring relitigation of the issue of plaintiff’s criminal guilt if the conviction had been procured by fraud but as I understand the present litigation it is not to relitigate the issue of guilt but only for the purpose of securing damages for some action of the police officers which may or may not have had anything to do with whether in fact he was guilty or whether he was properly convicted.
It appears to me that resort to the procedure of damage-seeking of this ex post facto nature should only proceed under strictly limited standards. The case is being returned to the district court and I am assuming a full record on the validity of the claim will now be developed either by summary judgment procedures or by an evidentary hearing.
Accordingly, I am concurring at this time.