6^th Circuit Affirms for State in Brady Violation Suit

On March 27, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the defendant, the State of Ohio, in an ex-death row prisoner’s civil rights action arising from Brady violations. Joe D’Ambrosio, convicted in 1989 of murder, spent almost 20 years on death row before being granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus in 2008. The conditional writ was based on the prosecution’s failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence, a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). After a failure to prosecute D’Ambrosio a second time, due largely to the fact that the key witness was dead, the district court granted an unconditional writ of habeas corpus in 2011 and D’Ambrosio was released. The State then lost its appeal based on subject matter jurisdiction.

D’Ambrosio filed a §1983 civil rights complaint against Cuyahoga County prosecutors Carmen Marino and William Mason, in their official capacities, as prosecutorial policymakers and a Monell claim against Cuyahoga County as their employers. D’Ambrosio also filed a similar §1983 claim against Cleveland police detective Leo Allen and a Monell claim against the city of Cleveland. Each of the defendants moved for summary judgment on the pleadings and the district court granted the defendants’ motions. The district court found that the complaint failed to allege that either the detective or the city of Cleveland violated D’Ambrosio’s constitutional rights, or that the county or its prosecutors caused him compensable constitutional damage. D’Ambrosio appealed.

The Court of Appeals brushed aside the threshold issue of whether the appeal was time barred, noting that both defendants’ arguments were misplaced as to when the statute of limitations for the cause of action accrued. The Court then addressed the plaintiff’s argument as to the sufficiency of his claims. D’Ambrosio did not appeal the individual prosecutor’s absolute immunity from civil liability, but did attack the district court’s dismissal of his Morell claims against Cuyahoga County, claiming that the county’s “official policy,” as set by the prosecutors, amounted to a deprivation of his rights. The Court of Appeals, by its own precedent, held that “local governments are not vicariously liable under §1983 for their employees’ actions,” and that prosecutors act as arms of the state, not of a municipality. The Court ruled against the plaintiff, affirming that his allegations were insufficient to support his cause.

As to D’Ambrosio’s claim that Detective Allen violated Brady in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, the Court noted that it is the duty of the prosecution, not the police, to disclose such information to the defense, and thus the Brady claim was incorrectly applied. Further, D’Ambrosio did not identify the specific documents that the prosecution allegedly withheld.

Just as the prosecutor and the county were found not liable, Detective Allen and the city of Cleveland were likewise excluded. The Court of Appeals ruled D’Ambrosio failed to state a claim and affirmed the district court’s decision. See: D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378 (6^th Cir. 2014), Case No: 13-3118 (6^th Cir. 2014).

Related legal case