Patrick Harrington, Individually and as Prosecutor of Tippecanoe County, Indiana, et al. v. Randall Martin

Facing a hearing over allegations of excessive force, deputy sheriff Randall Martin negotiated a written agreement with the Sheriff and resigned his employment in exchange for withdrawal of the merit board charges and a neutral employment reference. The day Martin’s resignation became effective, two state prosecutors made Brady/Giglio disclosures that reported Martin had used excessive force and provided false, misleading, or improper information. The prosecutors, who were not parties to Martin’s agreement with the Sheriff, provided the Brady/Giglio disclosures to one of Martin’s prospective employers (a town employing him for law-enforcement work). When Martin sued the prosecutors on a claim that they conspired with the Sheriff to violate his right to due process in continued public employment, the district court held that the prosecutors were entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, Martin did not argue that clearly established law made the disclosures unlawful; Martin maintained that this case was, “above all, novel.” App., infra, 38a (citation omitted). But the Seventh Circuit denied qualified immunity to the prosecutors on the ground that there is a “right not to be induced into resigning from public employment through material misrepresentations.” App., infra, 22a. It did not cite any case applying that general rule to similar facts. The question presented is: Whether the decision below conflicts with this Court’s clear, repeated admonitions that lower courts must define clearly established rights with specificity and adhere to the principle of party presentation.