Stinson v. Gauger

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review Dist. Ct.’s denial of defendants-police officials and dentists’ motion for summary judgment, where defendants asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated his due process rights by fabricating expert opinions regarding bite marks on murder victim’s body that were used to support guilty verdict that was vacated 23 years later after DNA evidence ruled out plaintiff as culprit. Dist. Ct. found that questions of fact precluded entry of summary judgment as to whether defendants had fabricated evidence, especially where record suggested that gross errors were made with dentists’ review of physical evidence and plaintiff’s dental impressions, and where, according to plaintiff, one dentist colluded with police officials prior to officials interviewing plaintiff. Moreover, under Johnson, 515 U.S.304, interlocutory determinations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment stage are not immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in qualified immunity cases. Also, defendants-dentists were not entitled to absolute immunity, where plaintiff’s complaint focused on defendants’ actions during murder investigation, as opposed to their trial testimony. (Dissent filed.)