Due Process

Roger Wayne Parker v. County of Riverside, et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Sun, 01/08/2023 - 22:08

The issue in Roger Wayne Parker v. County of Riverside, et. al. is whether a plaintiff can bring a Section 1983 suit for Brady violations if they aren't ultimately convicted of the crime for which exculpatory evidence was withheld or suppressed.

Our brief focuses on the prejudice innocent individuals experience when exculpatory evidence is withheld, due process protections against withholding exculpatory evidence, and the importance of civil rights cases to deter future Brady violations. 


Tyson v. Sabine

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Mon, 11/14/2022 - 04:25

During welfare check, deputy made explicit sexual remarks and demands, commanded plaintiff to expose her breasts, vagina, and clitoris and then masturbated to ejaculation in front of her; remarkably, the court finds that the plaintiff was not “seized” and thus had no claim under the Fourth Amendment; the court does find that plaintiff’s right to bodily integrity was violated in violation of substantive due process and finds, contrary to the district court (Judge Michael Joseph Truncale’s conscience was not shocked), that the defendant’s conduct shocked the conscience even though

Dennis v. City of Philadelphia

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 10/26/2022 - 14:59

Plaintiff claimed officers fabricated evidence and deliberately deceived the court by concealing evidence of other individuals who had confessed involvement with the murder and coercing and concealing other witnesses, fabricating physical evidence, and concealing evidence that supported an alibi defense; officers argued that the claimed constitutional rights did not exist at the time (1992) because Brady had not been decided; court denied qualified immunity because it found clearly established the rights to be free from being framed by fabricated evidence and perjured testimony and

Miranda v. City of Casa Grande

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 10/26/2022 - 13:14

Plaintiff had no cause of action under § 1983 against officer who allegedly lied during state administrative proceeding concerning suspension of plaintiff’s driver’s license; state provided sufficient postdeprivation process to foreclose procedural due process claim; officer’s conduct was unauthorized under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).

Frost v. New York City Police Dep’t.

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Fri, 10/21/2022 - 11:08
  • Plaintiff sues following acquittal on murder charge; court finds probable cause and affirms summary judgment for defendants on malicious prosecution claim, but finds viable due process claim based on witness’s affidavit that officers induced him to identify plaintiff as guilty party, finds district court erred in concluding that affidavit was incredible as a matter of law; probable cause is not a defense to a due process claim based on fabrication of evidence; due process claim does not fail even though witness did not testify at plaintiff’s criminal trial: “Notwithstanding the nomencl