The issues presented in the petition are: (1) whether the lower courts erred in granting summary judgment; and (2) whether "proving municipal policy or custom requires proving similar unconstitutional acts that occurred before the events giving rise to the lawsuit or whether proof or custom can be based, in part, on similar unconstitutional acts that occurred following the events involving the plaintiffs."
In 1975, a jury convicted Gregory Bright and Earl Truvia of murder, and the court sentenced them to life without parole. Almost thirty years later, a state court vacated their convictions because it found the state violated Brady v. Maryland. Bright and Truvia eventually sued the district attorney, the city, and officers involved in the investigation. Bright and Truvia claim that the district attorney had a policy of violating Brady, and failed to properly train assistant district attorneys regarding Brady. Because Bright and Truvia had no evidence of Brady violations beyond their own case, the district court held, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, that they failed to establish the existence of a policy, custom, or practice of the district attorney's office of violating Brady. Likewise, Bright and Truvia failed to prove Brady violations before their trial, so their failure-to-train claim failed too. And the cases Bright and Truvia cited to show a "continuum of Brady violations" involved events that occurred after their 1975 convictions.
It seems to me that the Fifth Circuit got it right. Will the Court grant cert.?