ROGER PARKER V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ET AL, No. 22-55614 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff was arrested for murder and held for almost four years before the charges against him were dismissed, months after another person confessed to the crime. Years later, Plaintiff then sued the County of Riverside and various County officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming that they had violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing the separate confession. The district court denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the Brady claim.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, without prejudice to Parker, asserting a different due process claim. A Brady violation requires that the withheld evidence have a reasonable probability of affecting a judicial proceeding, and no such proceeding was affected here. The panel held that Plaintiff could not show prejudice from the nondisclosure of the confession. A Brady violation requires that the withheld evidence have a reasonable probability of affecting a judicial proceeding. Plaintiff did not state a Brady claim because he did not assert the nondisclosure would have changed the result of any proceeding in his criminal case. The panel rejected Plaintiff’s contention that the prejudice inquiry should be whether the withheld evidence had a reasonable probability of affecting counsel’s strategy. The panel noted that no court has adopted Plaintiff’s proposed rule, and most other courts require a conviction to establish prejudice. Moreover, here, the cause of Plaintiff’s continued detention was not the suppression of the confession, but the District Attorney’s continued prosecution even after receiving the confession.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Brady The panel reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded, in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants violated plaintiff’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing another person’s confession to a murder for which plaintiff was arrested and held for almost four years before the charges were dismissed.
The panel held that plaintiff could not show prejudice from the nondisclosure of the confession. A Brady violation requires that the withheld evidence have a reasonable probability of affecting a judicial proceeding. Plaintiff did not state a Brady claim because he did not assert the nondisclosure would have changed the result of any proceeding in his criminal case.
The panel rejected plaintiff’s contention that the prejudice inquiry should be whether the withheld evidence had a reasonable probability of affecting counsel’s strategy. The panel noted that no court has adopted plaintiff’s proposed rule, and most other courts require a conviction to establish prejudice. Moreover, here, the cause of plaintiff’s continued detention was not the suppression of the confession, but the District Attorney’s continued prosecution even after receiving the confession.
The panel held that plaintiff might be able to establish a different due process claim, as recognized in Tatum v. Moody, 768 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2014), arising out of his continued detention after it was or should have been known that he was entitled to release. In this interlocutory appeal, however, the panel was not asked to address the merits of such a claim. Plaintiff can seek leave to amend his complaint to assert that claim on remand.
Concurring, Judge R. Nelson wrote separately to address why Brady should not be extended to pretrial proceedings, explaining that the Supreme Court has framed Brady as a trial right and has never extended Brady to pretrial hearings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.