Livers v. Schenck, No. 11-1877 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCousins Mathew Livers and Nicholas Sampson were arrested and jailed awaiting trial for two murders after Livers confessed to the murders and implicated Sampson as an accomplice. Later, the charges against Livers and Sampson were dropped. They separately sued individual officials and municipal entities involved in the investigation under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging numerous constitutional violations. Several of the individual defendants appealed from the district court's denials of their motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and the appeals have been consolidated. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity in regard to Livers' and Sampsons' claims against the Cass appellants and the NSP appellants alleging those appellants fabricated evidence, caused them to be arrested without probable cause, and conspired to violate their civil rights. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Livers claim that the Cass appellants and NSP appellants coerced Livers' confession. The court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Livers' and Sampsons' claims based on the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for Sheriff Dunning on all claims and to all appellants on Livers' claims based upon appellants' alleged failure to intervene.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil Rights. District court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity on plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process claims as that amendment only restrains the federal government and none of the defendants are federal employees; on claims defendants coerced a confession from plaintiff Livers, the district court did not err in denying defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as their actions potentially violated a clearly established right and a reasonable officer would have known that; district court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Sampson's claims that they violated his rights by coercing Livers' confession as he did not have standing; the district court did not err in denying defendants summary judgment on Livers' claims they violated his rights by fabricating evidence; defendant Dunning was entitled to qualified immunity on Livers' failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims; district court did not err in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' false arrest claims; assuming defendants failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, there was no Brady violation because plaintiffs were not convicted; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff Livers' failure-to-intervene claim; plaintiffs presented sufficient allegations and evidence of violation of clearly established rights to survive the Cass and NSP defendants' motion for summary judgment on their conspiracy claims; defendant Dunning was entitled to summary judgment on the conspiracy claims.
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.