Lisker v. City of Los Angeles, No. 13-55374 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff was convicted of second-degree murder and served more than twenty-six years in custody. In 2009, after a federal judge determined that falsified evidence had been introduced at trial, Plaintiff was released. The State subsequently dismissed the charges against him. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two Los Angeles Police Department detectives, alleging that Defendants fabricated reports, investigative notes, and photographs of a crime scene during their homicide investigation. The detectives also testified during preliminary proceedings and at trial. At issue in this interlocutory appeal was whether the doctrine of absolute witness immunity, which shields the detectives from liability for their testimony, also extended to the detectives' pre-trial actions. The district court rejected Defendants’ claim to absolute witness immunity for the alleged pre-trial fabrications. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s denial of summary judgment on witness immunity grounds, holding that Defendants’ investigative materials and allegedly falsified reconstruction of the crime scene fell outside the protection of absolute immunity, and further, the policy interests behind absolute immunity for testimony did not apply to the investigative materials in this case.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying absolute witness immunity to two Los Angeles Police Department detectives in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Bruce Lisker who alleged, among other things, that defendants fabricated police reports, investigative notes, and photographs of a crime scene during their homicide investigation. Lisker was convicted of second-degree murder, served over twenty-six years in custody, and was released in 2009 after a federal judge determined falsified evidence had been introduced at trial and conditionally granted a writ of habeas corpus. The State then dismissed the charges against Lisker. LISKER V. MONSUE 3 The panel held that defendants’ notes, investigative reports and photographs of the crime scene were analogous to the sorts of documentary and physical evidence—such as falsified videotaped interviews and forensic reports—that fall outside the protection of absolute immunity. The panel held that the same conclusion applied to the allegedly falsified reconstruction of the crime scene. The panel held that the policy interests behind absolute immunity for testimony do not apply to the investigative materials in this case. The panel concluded that defendants plainly acted in an investigative capacity in producing the notes, reports and crime-scene photographs and that qualified immunity provided sufficient protection for these activities. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the merits, specifically the district court’s findings regarding the detectives’ mental states and the falsity of the notes, reports and photographs. The panel held that these determinations were not inextricably intertwined with, or necessary to ensure meaningful review of, the immunity issues properly before the panel in the interlocutory appeal.
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.