If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Brian Mauldin, Charles Edward Branson, David R. Cooper, dward James Bain , III,

Description: Kansas City personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued defendants on civil rights violation theories.

Lamonte McIntyre and Rose Lee McIntyre filed suit against the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas (“Unified Government”), Roger Golubski, Dennis Ware, James Brown, Clyde Blood, W.K. Smith and Daphne Halderman (as special administrator of the estates of James Michael Krstolich, Dennis Otto Barber and Steve Culp, who are deceased). Plaintiffs allege that defendants arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned Lamonte McIntyre for murders that he did not commit, and they bring various claims under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and state law.[1] This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Officers' Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #574) filed April 1, 2022.
McIntyre v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty. & Kan. City (D. Kan. 2022).

* * *

Initially, the Court addresses the form of the parties' briefing and their compliance with D. Kan. Rule 56.1. The parties have submitted lengthy memoranda-a total of 523 pages of facts and argument. The factual sections of the parties' briefing encompass more than 400 pages which address 454 separate factual statements. In the parties' responses to the opposing party's statement of facts, neither side has complied with the local rule on motions for summary judgment.[3] The Court is therefore hesitant to dive too deeply into the futile exercise of addressing the parties' numerous arguments in the fact sections of their memoranda and attempting to distinguish disputed from undisputed facts, facts from inferences and facts from argument. In any event, from the voluminous briefing on the motion and counsel's statements at the hearing, the parties presented two diametrically opposed version of the facts with supporting record evidence.

Fairly viewed in light of the relevant summary judgment standards, the record reveals critical issues of material fact which defeat defendants' motion. Stated most generally, these issues include (1) whether-independent of individual wrongdoing-defendants had probable cause to arrest, confine and prosecute McIntyre; (2) whether any individual defendant acted with malice and caused McIntyre's wrongful prosecution; (3) whether defendants fabricated inculpatory evidence and intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; (4) whether individual defendants knew of Golubski's wrongful conduct yet failed to intervene; (5) whether officers conspired with each other to wrongfully arrest, confine and prosecute McIntyre; and (6) whether an affirmative link exists between the underlying constitutional violations and Culp's failure to supervise and implied approval of the investigative methods. This list is by no means exhaustive. No fair reading of the summary judgment record would entitle defendants to summary judgment on McIntyre's substantive claims.

McIntyre brings various federal claims under Section 1983: (1) Count 1 asserts Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution claims against Golubski, Krstolich, Ware, Brown, Barber, Culp and Smith; (2) Count 2 asserts Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment evidence fabrication claims against Golubski, Krstolich, Ware, Brown and Barber and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) against Golubski, Krstolich and Ware; (3) Count 3 asserts First and Fourteenth Amendment familial association claims against Golubski; (4) Count 4 asserts Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment failure to intervene claims against Krstolich, Ware and Culp; (5) Count 5 asserts First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy claims against Golubski, Krstolich, Ware, Barber and Culp; (6) Count 6 asserts Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment supervisory liability claims against Culp; and (7) Count 7 asserts claims under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) against the Unified Government. McIntyre also brings two state law claims: (1) Count 8 asserts malicious prosecution claims against Golubski, Krstolich, Ware, Brown, Barber, Culp and Smith; and (2) Count 9 asserts respondeat superior liability against the Unified Government for the state malicious prosecution
claims. See Pretrial Order (Doc. #562) filed March 17, 2022 at 40-41.[4] Ms. McIntyre joins in Count 3 (federal loss of familial association claim) and Count 7 (federal Monell liability claim).
McIntyre v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty. & Kan. City (D. Kan. 2022)

Outcome: 06/28/2022 685 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. On or before Tuesday, 7/5/2022 at 5:00 p.m., all parties must show good cause in writing why this Court should not certify that Golubski's interlocutory appeal is frivolous and lodged for dilatory purposes, and that the district court is therefore entitled to retain jurisdiction and proceed to trial on all issues absent intervention by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court will conduct a hearing on this issue on 7/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in KC Courtroom 440 (KHV). Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 6/28/2022. (mam) (Entered: 06/28/2022)
06/28/2022 686 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 574 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 6/28/2022. (bg) (Entered: 06/28/2022)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: