Gavitt v. Born

• Decision Date: 01 September 2016
• Docket Number: Nos. 15–2136/2434,s. 15–2136/2434
• Parties: David L. Gavitt, Plaintiff–Appellee (15–2136), Plaintiff–Appellant (15–2434), v. Bruce Born, personal representative of Estate of John E. DeVries, Defendant–Appellant (15–2136), County of Ionia; Gary M. Gabry; Raymond P. Voet; Gail Benda; Ronald J. Schafer; City of Ionia; Kenneth E. Voet; Randall W. Klein; John P. Fatchett; John J. Kalman, Jr., Defendants–Appellees (15–2434).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

835 F.3d 623

David L. Gavitt, Plaintiff–Appellee (15–2136), Plaintiff–Appellant (15–2434),

v.Bruce Born, personal representative of Estate of John E. DeVries, Defendant–Appellant (15–2136),

County of Ionia; Gary M. Gabry; Raymond P. Voet; Gail Benda; Ronald J. Schafer; City of Ionia; Kenneth E. Voet; Randall W. Klein; John P. Fatchett; John J. Kalman, Jr., Defendants–Appellees (15–2434).

Nos. 15–2136/2434

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: August 3, 2016

Decided and Filed: September 1, 2016

ARGUED: Joseph T. Froehlich, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant in 15–2136 and Appellees Fatchett and Kalman in 15–2434. Christopher P. Desmond, JOHNSON LAW, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee in 15–2136 and Appellant in 15–2434. Karen M. Daley, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C., Livonia, Michigan, for Ionia County Appellees in 15–2434. Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for City of Ionia Appellees in 15–2434. ON BRIEF: Joseph T. Froehlich, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant in 15–2136 and Appellees Fatchett and Kalman in 15–2434. Christopher P. Desmond, JOHNSON LAW, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee in 15–2136 and Appellant in 15–2434. Karen M. Daley, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C., Livonia, Michigan, for Ionia County Appellees in 15–2434. Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for City of Ionia Appellees in 15–2434.

Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

McKEAGUE

, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in the action from which these two appeals arise, David Gavitt, was sentenced to life in prison in 1986 after a jury found him guilty of arson and felony murder, charges stemming from a house fire that took the lives of his wife and two daughters. In June 2012, the state court granted Gavitt's unopposed motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence is in the nature of advancements in fire science research and investigation methods that tend to impugn some of the evidence on which Gavitt's convictions were based. The judgment was vacated, the charges dismissed, and Gavitt was released from prison.

Two years later, Gavitt brought this civil rights action against numerous city and county entities, prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and investigators who participated in the prosecution against him. He claims that defendants violated his due process rights by intentionally misrepresenting evidence and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, and that they conspired to deprive him of his rights. All defendants moved to dismiss on the pleadings and the district court granted all but one of the motions, that of the Estate of John DeVries, a Michigan State Police forensic laboratory technician who testified at Gavitt's trial.¹ While the district court identified legal deficits that warranted dismissal of most of Gavitt's claims, it held that Gavitt's claim against DeVries included sufficient factual allegations to state a valid claim for relief.

We now address two appeals stemming from the district court's rulings. First, in No. 15–2136, the Estate of DeVries challenges the denial of its motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. In short, the Estate contends the district court read Gavitt's claim too generously, failing to recognize that the public record made in state court contradicts his allegations, rendering the claim implausible. Second, in No. 15–2434, Gavitt challenges the dismissals of his claims against the other defendants, contending that his allegations pass muster at the pleading stage and that he deserves the chance to conduct discovery. For the reasons that follow, we deny relief in both appeals. The Estate's appeal must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. As to the second appeal, we affirm, finding no error in the dismissals of Gavitt's claims against the remaining defendants.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Each of the district court's substantive rulings includes substantially the same summary of the factual and procedural background. No party having disputed the accuracy of the summary, it is reproduced here:

A. Fire, Investigation, Arrest, Trial, and Conviction

Gavitt survived a March 9, 1985 house fire. His wife and two daughters tragically did not. An investigation was initiated by the City of Ionia Police Department and the Michigan State Police Arson Task Force.

On the morning of March 10, 1985, Defendants Kalman and Fatchett, then-Michigan State Police (“MSP”) officers assigned to the MSP Arson Strike Force Unit (“Det./Sgt. Kalman” and “Det./Sgt. Fatchett” respectively), were dispatched to the scene of the house fire to investigate its cause and origin. Based on their initial review of the evidence, they concluded that the fire was incendiary in nature. At 2:30 in the afternoon that same day, Det./Sgts. Kalman and Fatchett summoned Defendant Klein, then-Sergeant with the Ionia Police Department (“Sgt. Klein”), to the burned home, walked him through the evidence at the fire scene that led them to their initial conclusion that the fire was incendiary in nature, and collected evidence that Sgt. Klein then placed in an Ionia Police Department evidence locker. Sgt. Klein then continued his investigation by obtaining evidence from and interrogating Plaintiff David Gavitt (“Gavitt”), and obtaining more evidence from the burned home.

On March 12, 1985, as reported in Det./Sgt. Kalman's March 1985 Report, a meeting was held “for the purpose of reviewing the evidence and determining the course of the investigation.” Defendant Prosecutor Gabry is listed as being present. Det./Sgt. Kalman reported that he presented evidence, a discussion was held, and a conclusion reached that Gavitt may have set the fire himself and was unable to save his family once the fire started:

Undersigned officer explained the burn patterns and also relating [sic] the burn patterns to the burns on the victim. A formal discussion was held on all the evidence obtained and it is the feeling that there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that MR. DAVID GAVITT may have indeed set the fire himself and was unable to save his family once the fire started.

Sgt. Klein's March 20, 1985 Report also discussed the March 12th meeting and calls it a “ ‘skull session’ starting at/around 8:30 am, ending a short time later.” Sgt. Klein does not list Prosecutor Gabry as being present. Rather, he reports:

Journal Entry: It was on TUES, MARCH 12th, 1985 that this investigating officer, Sgt. Wieczorek and Chief Voet met with the following: City Superintendent Allen Housler, Det/Sgt. JOHN KALMAN and Det/Sgt. JOE DeKRACKER of the Arson Strike Force, MSP Rockford Post, this meeting was an “initial assessment of the case”. It should be noted that this meeting was a “skull session” starting at/around 8:30 am, ending a short time later.

On June 10, 1985, a felony complaint was issued, and state criminal charges were brought against Gavitt—three counts of murder, three counts of felony murder, arson, and arson insured property—and he was subsequently arrested. Sgt. Klein was the complaining witness on the criminal complaint.

On June 21, 1985, a preliminary examination hearing was held on the criminal charges brought against Gavitt. District Court Judge James Ward was the presiding judge and Defendant Gabry was the prosecutor. The District Court found that probable cause existed on the charged offenses—murder, felony murder, and arson—but dismissed the insurance fraud charge.

A jury trial was held in the Circuit Court for the County of Ionia. On February 14, 1986, a jury convicted Gavitt on three counts of murder committed in the perpetration of arson (first degree felony murder) and one count of arson to a dwelling place. The one count of arson was dismissed by the Court at sentencing.

On April 18, 1986, Gavitt was sentenced to “imprisonment for life on each of the three counts of murder, to be served concurrently with each other.”

B. Innocence Clinic's Post-trial Motion for Relief, Stipulation, and Dismissal

In September 2011, a motion for relief from judgment was filed on Gavitt's behalf by the University of Michigan Law School's Innocence Clinic, arguing that there was newly discovered scientific analysis of the origin and cause of the March 1985 fire establishing that there was no arson. That motion explained that evidence of actual innocence was only recently discovered because, beginning in 1992, there has been a complete revolution in the field of fire investigation:

14. The field of fire investigation has undergone a complete revolution since Mr. Gavitt was convicted in 1986. In 1992, the National Fire Protection Association adopted NFPA 921, the current standard of care for fire investigations, which for the first time put the field of fire investigation on a scientific basis.

15. In light of the changes in the field of fire investigation, John Lentini—a world-renowned fire investigator who has reviewed all available testimony and evidence in this case—has concluded that there is no basis to conclude that arson was the cause of the Gavitt fire. Mr. Lentini's affidavit is attached to the brief accompanying this motion.

16. Mr. Lentini's findings are rooted in the crucial concept of “flashover,” which was not well understood by the fire investigation community at the time of Mr. Gavitt's trial. During flashover—a phenomenon that takes place when a compartment like the Gavitt living room catches fire—a room becomes so hot that every exposed combustible surface can catch fire.

* * * * *

29. Mr. Lentini's scientific conclusions regarding the origin and cause of the Gavitt fire meet this [newly discovered evidence] test. His findings are based on the new standards of origin and cause investigation, which were not adopted until the early 1990s, at the earliest, years after Mr. Gavitt's trial. The evidence refutes all scientific evidence

...