Tiscareno v. Anderson, No. 09-4238 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff-Appellee Abby Tiscareno ran a licensed day care in Summit County, Utah. One morning in November, 2003, James Molineux dropped off his two sons. Plaintiff had cared for the Molineux boys since September. The younger of the two boys appeared sleepy that morning, and Plaintiff placed him in a crib. When the baby would not wake for feeding, Plaintiff called 911. The baby was found to have brain injuries indicating “a prior bleed.” Plaintiff denied that she injured the baby, but the doctor’s insistence that the injuries were recent lead police to focus solely on Plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested and charged with felony child abuse. Plaintiff requested any evidence pertaining to her case, but received none. She was convicted of the charges against her. It was not until the Monineuxs sued Plaintiff did she learn of an exculpatory pathology report. A Utah court granted Plaintiff a new trial. When confronted with the pathology report at the second trial, the attending doctors admitted the report suggested that the baby sustained injuries days before he was dropped off at Plaintiff’s day care. Plaintiff was found not guilty at the second trial. Plaintiff filed suit for damages under federal and state law against Defendant-Appellant Richard Anderson in his official capacity as Director of the Division of Child and Family Services ("DCFS"), claiming that he and several other individual entities involved in the investigation and prosecution violated her rights to due process. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit based on qualified immunity. The district court rejected the motion. Defendant appealed. On review, the Tenth Circuit District Court noted that the qualified immunity doctrine is designed to protect public officials who act in good faith. The Court also recognized that the intentional failure of an investigator to turn over exculpatory evidence creates a liability for the investigating agency. “Even a generous reading of the case law fails to establish clearly that [Defendant’s] actions amounted to a constitutional deprivation.” The Court held that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because the record reflects he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law. The Court reversed the denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
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.