Moran v. Calumet City

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting police officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated Brady by suppressing police report suggesting that someone else committed shootings at issue in plaintiff’s criminal conviction that was eventually vacated. Plaintiff’s allegation in his complaint that prosecutor was aware of said report was judicial admission that precluded plaintiff from establishing civil Brady violation with respect to police defendants. Moreover, even without judicial admission, plaintiff could not show that any defendant acted either intentionally or recklessly, where: (1) two defendants were not aware of said report; (2) one defendant who was aware of said report testified that he only mistakenly failed to bring report to prosecutor’s attention; and (3) plaintiff’s ability to cast doubt on said defendant’s version of facts did not produce evidence that opposite of said defendant’s version of facts is true or that he acted intentionally. Dist. Ct. also did not err in failing to grant plaintiff’s motion to file amended complaint that removed allegation that prosecutor was aware of said report prior to trial, where said motion was not filed until after summary judgment motion was filed. With respect to other reports or identifications, Ct. of Appeals found that either prosecution was aware of said evidence, which precluded plaintiff from obtaining recovery under civil Brady claim, or that defendant and prosecution were aware of said evidence, which also precluded plaintiff from recovery.