Barry Morphew was arrested in May 2021 for the first-degree murder of his wife, Suzanne, who had disappeared in May 2020. During the investigation, law enforcement discovered Suzanne was having an extramarital affair and suspected Morphew killed her upon learning of it. Morphew spent four months in detention before the charges were voluntarily dismissed in April 2022 after the prosecution disclosed exculpatory material. Morphew subsequently sued twenty-five state prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and municipal entities, alleging malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, Franks violations, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the arrest affidavit contained sufficient inculpatory facts to establish probable cause and that Morphew failed to link specific defendants to the alleged injuries.
Circuit Judge Rossman, writing for the panel, affirmed the dismissal, focusing on the plausibility standard required under Rule 12(b)(6). The court explained that to survive dismissal, Morphew's complaint must allege specific facts showing a lack of probable cause for his arrest. The court reviewed the arrest affidavit alongside Morphew's allegations, noting that even if the allegedly false or omitted information were removed, the remaining undisputed facts still supported probable cause. These facts included Morphew's controlling and abusive behavior, his unusual actions on the day of his wife's disappearance, his conflicting statements to investigators, his possession of tranquilizer chemicals, and the discovery of his wife's bike and DNA evidence. The court held that these facts established a 'substantial probability' that Morphew committed the crime, satisfying the probable cause requirement. Consequently, claims for malicious prosecution, Fourth Amendment fabrication of evidence, Franks violations, conspiracy, failure to intervene, and Monell liability all failed because they depended on the absence of probable cause. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment fabrication of evidence claim, the court held that Morphew failed to plausibly allege that the fabricated evidence was the cause of his prosecution, as he did not allege that the defendants would not have charged him without the alleged fabrication. The reckless investigation claim was also dismissed due to a lack of plausible causation and the circuit's skepticism regarding such a cause of action.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, concluding Morphew's federal civil rights lawsuit. The decision reinforces that at the pleading stage, courts must accept well-pleaded facts as true but still require specific factual content to plausibly allege a lack of probable cause. It clarifies that probable cause remains a dispositive barrier for most § 1983 claims arising from arrests, even when misconduct is alleged. The case is concluded, though a Colorado grand jury had re-indicted Morphew on first-degree murder charges while the appeal was pending, a fact the court noted did not affect the disposition of this civil appeal.