From 2010 to 2014, the Riverside District Attorney’s Office held a man on suspicion of murder. Six months of that time was after the office found a recording of the accused’s roommate confessing to the murder.
That man, Roger Parker, just passed a major barrier in his attempt to bring a civil suit against Riverside County and then-members of the District Attorney’s Office.
On Nov. 21, California Central District Judge Jesus Bernal denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Parker’s due process claim.
Parker’s amended complaint brings a new due process argument called a Tatum-Lee claim. It is based on the 2014 court case Tatum v. Moody:
“Where, as here, investigating officers, acting with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for a suspect’s right to freedom from unjustified loss of liberty, fail to disclose potentially dispositive exculpatory evidence to the prosecutors, leading to the lengthy detention of an innocent man, they violate the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The defendants asked Bernal to dismiss that claim, arguing that it was time-barred, and that it did not apply to prosecutors. Bernal disagreed.
He ruled that the claim could be brought two years after a plaintiff discovers evidence for an alleged civil rights violation. In this case, Parker did not know the District Attorney’s Office had his roommate’s confession until 2020, when his former prosecutor, Christopher Ross filed his own suit against the District Attorney’s Office alleging he was fired for maintaining Parker’s innocence. Ross lost that case on trial this year.
“To hold that the statute of limitations accrued upon the dismissal of charges would create an impossible obstacle for future plaintiffs. Such a result would mean that all plaintiffs who have experienced a relatively lengthy detention are on inquiry notice of a Tatum-Lee violation as soon as charges are dismissed. Here, all Plaintiff alleges he knew upon his release was that he was not at home at the time of the murder, that his confession was coerced, and that the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence,” Bernal continued.
Bernal also said that the Tatum-Lee claim obviously applies to prosecutors.
“It is nonsensical to hold that because prosecutors and not investigating officers allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence, Plaintiff cannot state a claim. The right contemplated by Tatum and Lee is a detainee’s “constitutional right to be free from continued detention after it was or should have been known that the detainee was entitled to release,” not a prosecutor’s right to information,” Bernal wrote.
Bernal did dismiss three of Parker’s other claims for malicious prosecution, county liability for malicious prosecution and declaratory relief.
The statute of limitations for the malicious prosecution claims ran out, he said. Parker could have brought a claim for malicious prosecution within two years of his release from jail, since he knew from the beginning that his own confession was coerced and that he was not at home at the time of the murder. In other words, there was no delayed discovery that triggered his claim and that consequently reset the statute of limitations.
The declaratory relief claim would have set an injunction to prevent the DA’s Office from engaging in similar practices. This claim failed because Parker is not at risk of being prosecuted again.
The Tatum-Lee claim was made at the suggestion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, who heard Parker’s case on appeal after it was dismissed with leave to amend.
Parker had originally brought claims of malicious prosecution and a violation of the Brady rule. The Brady rule requires evidence that could clear a defendant’s name to be shared with defense counsel. In most of the country, a Brady claim requires proof that the evidence would have changed the result of a trial. In this circuit, it requires proof that the evidence would have changed the result of a trial or a hearing. Parker’s claim failed because his case never had a preliminary hearing: hearings were always continued at the agreement of prosecutors and defense counsel.
Case info
Case No. 5:21-cv-01280
Appellate Case No. 22-55614
Read Parker’s amended complaint here.
Read Bernal’s order to partially dismiss here.
Read our prior coverage here:
Ex-prosecutor testifies he was forced out after finding evidence clearing defendant
Ex-prosecutor loses 8-year retaliation case against former DA
Riverside County, man jailed 4 years, argue civil-rights precedent for exonerative evidence
Civil rights case against Riverside DA’s Office sets precedent
UPDATE: Plaintiff brings new civil rights claim against Riverside DA
