Mellen v. Winn, No. 17-55116 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant based on qualified immunity grounds in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that defendant failed to disclose evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the star prosecution witness in plaintiff's trial. The panel held that the record demonstrated as a matter of law that defendant withheld material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, and raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for plaintiff's due process rights. The panel also held that the law at the time of the 1997–98 investigation clearly established that police officers investigating a criminal case were required to disclose material, impeachment evidence to the defense. Finally, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion by striking the declaration of plaintiff's police practices expert. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Rights / Qualified Immunity. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Detective Marcella Winn on qualified immunity grounds in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff Susan Mellen was wrongly imprisoned for seventeen years before securing habeas relief in October 2014, and she and her children brought this civil rights action against Detective Winn based on her failure to disclose evidence. The panel held that the record demonstrated as a matter of law that Detective Winn withheld material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Detective Winn acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for plaintiff’s due process rights. The panel held that the law at the time of 1997–98 investigation clearly established that police officers investigating a criminal case were required to disclose material, impeachment evidence to the defense. The panel concluded that the district court abused its discretion by striking the declaration of Mellen’s police practices expert, Roger Clark.
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.