Robert Sutherby v. James Sukach, Michael Strader, and John Bryant Allen

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee considers Defendant John Bryant Allen’s motion to dismiss claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence. The order recounts allegations concerning a criminal investigation, allegedly fabricated evidence, and Plaintiff Robert Sutherby’s acquittal at trial. The court grants Allen’s motion to dismiss and denies as moot his motion directed at the superseded initial complaint.

Holdings

1. Filing an amended complaint rendered the original complaint a nullity for purposes of the pending motion, so Allen's motion to dismiss the original complaint was moot.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim against Allen because it did not allege facts sufficient to rebut the indictment's presumption of probable cause by showing that Allen knowingly or recklessly made material false statements, fabricated evidence, or made material misleading omissions in setting the prosecution in motion.
3. The amended complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim because it did not allege that evidence supposedly fabricated by Allen was introduced at trial or otherwise affected the jury's decision or Sutherby's right to a fair trial.
4. The amended complaint failed to state a Fourth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim because it did not allege that Allen fabricated evidence presented to the grand jury or to a judge determining probable cause.
5. Allen was entitled to qualified immunity because the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that he violated Sutherby's constitutional rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Allen's motion to dismiss the original complaint became moot when Sutherby filed an amended complaint.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Allen knowingly or recklessly made false statements or fabricated evidence sufficient to rebut the indictment's presumption of probable cause and state a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim.
3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim by showing that allegedly fabricated evidence affected Sutherby's right to a fair trial.
4. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim by showing that Allen fabricated evidence presented to the grand jury or a judge determining probable cause.
5. Whether Allen was entitled to qualified immunity.

Disposition

dismissed