Metoyer v. Connick

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30918
Summary Calendar
KARON METOYER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HARRY F. CONNICK, SR.; ET AL,
Defendants
IAN ANGEL, MD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-3019-N
--------------------
March 29, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Karon Metoyer alleges that Dr. Ian Angel, a state
employee, and other defendants conspired to deprive him of his
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by maliciously
prosecuting him and concealing evidence favorable to Metoyer. The
evidence, Dr. Angel’s report indicating that a gunshot wound was
inflicted in a manner consistent with an accident or the shooter’s
self-defense, was unearthed by Metoyer’s lawyers and resulted in
the vacation of Metoyer’s 1997 conviction for attempted

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-30918
-2-
manslaughter, but only after Metoyer had served 22 months in
prison. See State v. Metoyer, 720 So. 2d 148 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
After the other defendants were dismissed, Angel moved for
dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on grounds that
included absolute and qualified immunity. The magistrate judge who
heard the case by consent denied Angel’s motion as it concerned
qualified immunity.
Government officers are protected from suit under the
qualified-immunity doctrine when their actions were objectively
reasonable “in light of clearly established law” and the
information possessed by the officers at the time of their relevant
conduct. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). It was
clearly established at the time of Metoyer’s arrest and trial that
Metoyer had a constitutional right to obtain exculpatory material
in the hands of the “‘prosecution team’ which includes both
investigative and prosecutorial personnel.” United States v.
Antone, 603 F. 2d 566, 569 (5th Cir. 1979). Metoyer has
sufficiently alleged that Angel was an investigating member of the
“prosecution team” responsible for disclosing the medical report
and that Angel and others acted in concert to conceal the report
and prosecute him maliciously. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427
(5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). These allegations, which are assumed to
be true for purposes of the Rule 12 motion to dismiss, could result
in Angel’s liability. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is premature.
The ruling of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --