DISCLAIMER:  Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.

111877P.pdf   11/08/2012  Matthew Livers  v.  Tim Dunning
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-1877
                          and No:  11-1879
                          and No:  11-1880
                          and No:  11-1917
                          and No:  11-1918
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Civil Rights. District court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity on plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process claims as that amendment only restrains the federal government and none of the defendants are federal employees; on claims defendants coerced a confession from plaintiff Livers, the district court did not err in denying defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as their actions potentially violated a clearly established right and a reasonable officer would have known that; district court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Sampson's claims that they violated his rights by coercing Livers' confession as he did not have standing; the district court did not err in denying defendants summary judgment on Livers' claims they violated his rights by fabricating evidence; defendant Dunning was entitled to qualified immunity on Livers' failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims; district court did not err in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' false arrest claims; assuming defendants failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, there was no Brady violation because plaintiffs were not convicted; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff Livers' failure-to-intervene claim; plaintiffs presented sufficient allegations and evidence of violation of clearly established rights to survive the Cass and NSP defendants' motion for summary judgment on their conspiracy claims; defendant Dunning was entitled to summary judgment on the conspiracy claims.