Heard v. Jackson

Background

Charles Heard sued Damon Jackson and the City and County of San Francisco under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional rights by state or local officials. Heard alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The allegations concerned the murder of Richard Barrett. After a seven-month investigation, police arrested Heard and charged him with the murder. During the investigation, Jackson, a San Francisco Police Department sergeant assigned to the Western Addition Gang Task Force, viewed surveillance footage at the district attorney’s office. Jackson believed the men in the video could be Derrick Anderson and Gregory Walker. Heard alleged that Jackson’s identification of those alternative suspects was not disclosed to Heard or his defense attorneys.

A jury found Heard guilty of first-degree murder and attempted second-degree robbery. Years later, Jackson testified about the same video during a federal gang-conspiracy trial. Heard then filed a petition challenging his conviction. The reviewing court found a violation under Brady v. Maryland, meaning that favorable evidence had been withheld, and vacated Heard’s conviction. The prosecution declined to retry him.

Claims and Motion

Heard asserted four types of claims: (1) a claim that Jackson violated his right to due process by withholding favorable evidence; (2) a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim against Jackson; (3) a Fourteenth Amendment claim that Jackson fabricated evidence; and (4) a claim that the City was responsible for failing to train police and district attorney employees about their obligations to disclose favorable evidence.

Jackson and the City moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a legal claim plausible, assuming the complaint’s factual allegations are true for purposes of the motion.

Claims Against Jackson

The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against Jackson.

For the Brady claim, the court accepted that Jackson’s observations were favorable evidence and that failing to share them with Heard’s defense team could have prejudiced Heard. But the court held that Heard did not allege facts supporting a plausible inference that Jackson withheld the information from prosecutors. Instead, the allegations indicated that Jackson disclosed his identification to investigators in the district attorney’s office. The court also held that the allegations did not support an inference that Jackson acted with deliberate indifference, because his alleged involvement consisted of viewing the video, identifying alternative suspects, and later testifying truthfully about his observations.

For malicious prosecution, the court held that Heard did not plausibly allege Jackson was involved in causing the prosecution in the required way. The complaint did not allege that Jackson exerted pressure on the prosecutor, knowingly provided misinformation, concealed favorable evidence from prosecutors, or otherwise engaged in wrongful conduct that was actively instrumental in starting the criminal proceedings.

For fabrication of evidence, the court explained that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state official from deliberately fabricating evidence. But the complaint did not allege that Jackson continued investigating Heard after identifying alternative suspects, or that Jackson otherwise investigated Heard. The court therefore dismissed that claim as well.

Claim Against the City

The court denied the motion to dismiss the claim that the City failed to train its employees. A local government cannot be held liable merely because one of its employees allegedly committed a violation. A plaintiff must connect the violation to a municipal policy, custom, or inadequate training.

The court found that Heard adequately alleged the elements of a failure-to-train claim: that the City’s training about Brady obligations was inadequate, that the City was deliberately indifferent to a pattern of similar constitutional violations, and that the inadequate training caused prejudice. Although Heard did not adequately plead a Brady violation by Jackson, the court found that he had alleged a sufficient Brady claim involving an unnamed district attorney investigator who allegedly knew about Jackson’s identification of alternative suspects and did not share it with the prosecuting attorney.

The court also relied on a prior Ninth Circuit case involving similar allegations that San Francisco police officials withheld evidence about alternative suspects. The court concluded that this earlier decision could support an allegation that the City was on notice of a pattern of similar violations.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against Jackson without leave to amend. The court denied the motion to dismiss the City’s failure-to-train claim. The case-management conference was set for July 28, 2022, and the order stated that it disposed of the motion at Docket No. 27.