WPC Bs].bAs |!EX..BsajMZrvN +xY Ƒ (;W$F5M+ӃͰ]8?fSE/+]Xi>dnfՏ 9]xJ=Vl#˜T hŒ@L6y~͛AGm.(P%B3sd/_Nпؽ_gR\_9S&Cg &x{]6,QZ_T)%PX4ӂ/s=+D4ؗAB.;cl ԩh{J!~&|j!6]c4lخ =6ZwrWB)BEs1/i9)$bIފ?`{ kӵtS{yV,D?4,B̀u&wtκI*a=Ec~ 2(#0 % 0D 0(;c 0{AnT N 6 ^ Ow[4_s mEfaN><b/77??????UFUF=U@ BHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0!X(#$  0  ($  Z$  =  XXdd=    *    _TheHonorableJohnR.Gibson,oftheEighthCircuit,sitting  bydesignation.(d:2Z$ !    = r} XXdd=    0    ! ' Turner0Turner .   <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ , Z$  =  XXdd=    3    _AlthoughaMassachusettsstatecourtjudgeoriginally  sentencedthetriotodeath,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt  subsequentlyvacatedthatdisposition.See,e.g.,Limonev. \ Massachusetts,408U.S.936(1972).Eventually,allthesentences 2 werecommutedtolifeimprisonment.K0s v06Xy File3|xUTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT 2 Z$  =  XXdd=    2    _Theplaintiffsactuallysoughtdamagesagainstseveralother  partiesaswell,assertingasalmagundioffederalandstatelaw  theories.SeeLimone,271F.Supp.2dat348n.3(identifyingthe \ defendantsanddelineatingtheclaims).Onesuchparty,formerFBI 2 agentH.PaulRico,diedonJanuary16,2004.Whennopersonal X representativecameforwardonhisbehalf,wedismissedhispending . * appealwithoutprejudice.Theotherdefendantsarenotpartiesto  theseinterlocutoryappeals.- -   Z$  =  XXdd=    1    _TherearetwosuitsratherthanthreebecauseLimoneand  Tameleo'sheirsandpersonalrepresentativesjoinedinthefiling  ofasingleaction.Greco'sexecutrixandheirschosetosue \ separately..Courier New Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman  d !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !     !UX!X" t!UUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  #"XPX" t#"X"XPFortheFirstCircuit#"XPX"Y##!XXX"XP#   A') ` dE< ` A   No.032130 u  Ѐ032212 K  ̀@PETERJ.LIMONEETAL.,  G  @Plaintiffs,Appellees,   @tt)v. O  @ DENNISCONDONETAL., K  @Defendants,Appellants.  A') ` dE<R` A S @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 4 @P P [Hon.NancyGertner,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @'Before !q   @@((Selya,CircuitJudge,  Gibson, #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge, y! andHoward,CircuitJudge. %!u# A') ` dE<"` A "!%       JohnM.Connolly,withwhomMichaelB.MeyerandMeyer, #' Connolly,Sloman&MacDonaldLLPwereonbrief,forappellant $( Condon. b% )   JamesM.Chernetsky,AssistantCorporationCounsel,Cityof 8&!* Boston,withwhomThomasR.Donohue,AssistantCorporationCounsel, '^"+ wasonbrief,forappellantWalsh. '4#,   MichaelAvery,withwhomJulianeBalliro,RonaldJ.Snyder, ( $- andPerkins,Smith&Cohen,LLPwereonconsolidatedbrief,for )$. appelleesLimoneandTameleoetal. f*%/? Ї  JohnFoskett,withwhomRichardD.Bickelman,LawrenceR.  Holland,andDeutschWilliamsBrooksDerensis&Holland,P.C.were  onbrief,forappelleesWerner(ExecutrixoftheEstateofLouis \ Greco)etal. 2 *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +       SI h `@38147`@SJune10,2004  >   RHC  " `@38147 `@ R( h   (  * !     `     h    L    8!!XXdXXd8*,X` XX* ` SELYA,CircuitJudge. Theseinterlocutoryappealsfollow  theentryofanorderdenyingmotionstodismissbasedonqualified x immunity.SeeLimonev.UnitedStates,271F.Supp.2d345,349 $t (D.Mass.2003).Theappellantsexhortustoreversethatdecree   or,alternatively,toexercisependentappellatejurisdictionover |  another(potentiallydispositive)issue.Weconcludethatatthis ( x  stageoftheproceedings(i)thedistrictcourtappropriately $  rejectedtheappellants'qualifiedimmunitydefenses,and(ii)the   scopeoftheseinterlocutoryappealsshouldnotbebroadenedto ,|  encompassanunrelatedissue.Consequently,weaffirmthedenial ( ofqualifiedimmunityandremandforfurtherdevelopmentofthe  facts. 0  I.BACKGROUND  ,  ` Theseappealsariseoutoftwoseparatebutclosely  relatedsuits,consolidatedinthedistrictcourt.Anexplication P oftheunderlyingfactsrequiresthejuridicalequivalentofan L archeologicaldig.Therelevanteventsdatebackalmostfour   decadestothe1965murderofEdward"Teddy"Deeganandthe1968 T!" convictionsofseveralindividuals,includingPeterLimone,Louis #P$ Greco,andHenryTameleo,forthatslaying.Notwithstandingthe $& jury'sverdictandthesubsequentrejectionoftheirdirect X&!( appeals,seeCommonwealthv.French,259N.E.2d195(Mass.1970), (T#* thethreemensteadfastlymaintainedtheirinnocenceandmounteda )%, campaigntocleartheirnames.Thefacts,asnowrevealed, \+&. seeminglysupporttheirclaimsofinnocence.Theinstantactions  seekdamagesagainstthoseallegedlyresponsiblefortheirwrongful \ convictions. X  ` Forpresentpurposes,theoperativepleadingsarethetwo   amendedcomplaints. #  1      ׀Thosecomplaintsareseparatebutsimilar. `  Wecompilethefollowingaccountofthefactsbyreadingthe  \  amendedcomplaintsintandem,drawingallreasonableinferences   therefrominthelightmostagreeabletotheplaintiffs(asthe d  partiesopposingthemotionstodismiss).Wenote,however,that `  thedistrictcourtrecountedthefactualallegationssetoutinthe   amendedcomplaintsatsomelength,seeLimone,271F.Supp.2dat h 34953,andweurgethosewhohungerforgreaterdetailtoconsult d thatrescript.   ` Theplaintiffs"Limone(theonlysurvivingmemberofthe l trio),theestatesofGrecoandTameleo,andvariousrelatives h assertingderivativeclaims"havesuedbothaquondamagentofthe  FederalBureauofInvestigation(FBI)andaretiredBostonpolice p  officer. #  2      ׀TheamendedcomplaintsallegethattheformerFBIagent, !l" DennisCondon,andtheformerBostondetective,FrankL.Walsh,  framedLimone,Greco,andTameleo,assistedtheCommonwealthof \ Massachusettsinwronglyconvictingthemonachargeoffirst X degreemurder,participatedinacoverup,andallowedthethree   innocentmentolanguishinprisonforyears. < #  3      ׀Inrelevantpart, `  thecomplaintsassertBivensclaimsagainstCondon,seeBivensv.  \  SixUnknownNamedAgentsoftheFBN,403U.S.388,397(1971),and   section1983claimsagainstWalsh,see42U.S.C.1983(2000). d  ThecentralthemeoftheseclaimsistheaccusationthatCondonand `  Walsh,interalios,violatedtheConstitutionbydevelopingone   Joseph"Baron"Barbozaasawitnessfortheprosecutioninspiteof h theirknowledgethatBarbozawouldperjurehimselfandfalsely d implicatethreeinnocentmeninDeegan'smurder.   ` CondonandWalsh(appellantshere)movedtodismissboth l amendedcomplaintsbasedonthedoctrineofqualifiedimmunity. h Theysimultaneouslymovedtodismissthesuitsbroughtonbehalfof  GrecoandTameleoonthegroundthatthoseplaintiffshadfailedto p  satisfythefavorableterminationrequirement(describedinfraPart !l" III)laiddownbytheSupremeCourtinHeckv.Humphrey,512U.S. "$ 477,48687(1994).Thedistrictcourtrebuffedtheseinitiatives.  Astoqualifiedimmunity,thecourtfounditinconceivablethat,at \ thetimeoftherelevantevents,"areasonablelawenforcement X officerwouldhavethoughtitpermissibletoframesomebodyfora   crimeheorshedidnotcommit."Limone,271F.Supp.2dat365 `  66.AstoHeck,thecourtfoundthefavorabletermination  \  requirementsatisfiedvisvistheGrecoandTameleoplaintiffson   atheoryofconstructivereversaland,alternatively,onatheory d  ofestoppel.Id.at361.Thesetimelyappealsensued. `   II.THEQUALIFIEDIMMUNITYDEFENSE     ` CondonandWalshhaveappealedfromthedistrictcourt's  orderdenyingtheirmotionstodismissbasedonqualifiedimmunity. 0 Aninterlocutoryappealliesfromsuchanorderwhere,ashere, , qualifiedimmunityturnsonabstractlegalquestions.Stellav.  Kelley,63F.3d71,74(1stCir.1995).Wereviewthedistrict 4 court'sorderdenovo,directingdismissalofthecomplaints"only 0 ifitisclearthatnoreliefcouldbegrantedunderanysetof   factsthatcouldbeprovedconsistentwiththeallegations." 8!" Hishonv.King&Spaulding,467U.S.69,73(1984). "4$  ` Webeginwithfirstprinciples.Qualifiedimmunityisa $& judgemadedoctrine.Theelementaryjustificationforthedoctrine <&!( isthatpublicofficialsperformingdiscretionaryfunctionsshould '8#* befreetoactwithoutfearofretributivesuitsfordamagesexcept )$, whentheyshouldhaveunderstoodthatparticularconductwas @+&. unlawful.Davisv.Scherer,468U.S.183,195(1984).That  awarenessdepends,inlargepart,ontheextenttowhichlegal \ ruleswereclearlyestablishedwhentheofficialacted.Harlowv. X Fitzgerald,457U.S.800,818(1982).Itfollowsthataninquiry   intothereasonablenessofanofficer'sconductmustfocusbothon `  whattheofficerdid(orfailedtodo)andonthestateofthelaw  \  atthetimeoftheallegedactoromission.Savardv.Rhode   Island,338F.3d23,28(1stCir.2003)(enbanc),cert.denied, d  124S.Ct.1074(2004);Iacobucciv.Boulter,193F.3d14,21(1st `  Cir.1999).Intheend,thequalifiedimmunitydefenseshould   prevailunlesstheunlawfulnessofthechallengedconductwas h "apparent"whenundertaken.Andersonv.Creighton,483U.S.635, d 640(1987).   ` Althoughtheseappealsinvolveclaimsbasedontwo l differentlegaltheories"Bivensandsection1983"theanalytical h frameworkis,forourpurposes,identical.SeeWilsonv.Layne,  526U.S.603,609(1999).DrawingonSupremeCourtprecedent,see, p  e.g.,Saucierv.Katz,533U.S.194,20002(2001),wehave !l" developedathreepartalgorithmforassessingwhetherafederalor "$ stateactorisentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Weconsider(i) t$& whethertheplaintiff'sallegations,iftrue,establisha  &p!( constitutionalviolation;(ii)whethertheconstitutionalrightat '#* issuewasclearlyestablishedatthetimeoftheputative x)$, violation;and(iii)whetherareasonableofficer,situated $+t&. similarlytothedefendant,wouldhaveunderstoodthechallenged  actoromissiontocontravenethediscernedconstitutionalright. \ Savard,338F.3dat27.Moreoftenthannot,properdevelopmentof X thelawofqualifiedimmunityisadvancedifcourtstreatthese   threequestionssequentially.SeeSaucier,533U.S.at201; `  Fabianov.Hopkins,352F.3d447,453(1stCir.2003).  \  @* A     ` Thethresholdquestioninaqualifiedimmunityappeal   centersonthecurrentstateofthelaw.Onamotiontodismiss, ,|  thisquestionaskswhetherthefactsalleged,viewedinthelight ( mostfavorabletothecomplainingparty,showthattheofficer's  conductviolatedsomeconstitutionalright.Siegertv.Gilley,500 0 U.S.226,23233(1991);Santanav.Calder;n,342F.3d18,23(1st , Cir.2003).Weturndirectlytothatquestion.   ` Theamendedcomplaintspaintasordidpicture.Although 4 themisdeedsdescribedthereinaremanyandvaried,theplaintiffs' 0 claimsmaybedistilledintotwobasicallegations:first,that   theappellantspurposefullysubornedfalsetestimonyfromakey 8!" witness;andsecond,thattheappellantssuppressedexculpatory "4$ evidenceinaneffortbothtocoveruptheirownmalefactionsand $& toshieldtheactualmurderers(oneofwhomwasbeinggroomedasan <&!( FBIinformant).Thecomplaintsweavetheseallegationstogether. '8#*  Fromthatplatform,theplaintiffsasseveratethatanindividual's )$, rightnottobeconvictedbythesetawdrymeans"hisrightnotto  beframedbythegovernment"isbeyonddoubt. \   ` Thisiseasypickings.Althoughconstitutional X interpretationoccasionallycanproverecondite,sometruthsare   selfevident.Thisisonesuch:ifanyconceptisfundamentalto `  ourAmericansystemofjustice,itisthatthosechargedwith  \  upholdingthelawareprohibitedfromdeliberatelyfabricating   evidenceandframingindividualsforcrimestheydidnotcommit. d  See,e.g.,Devereauxv.Abbey,263F.3d1070,107475(9thCir. `  2001)(enbanc).Actionstakenincontraventionofthis   prohibitionnecessarilyviolatedueprocess(indeed,weareunsure h whatdueprocessentailsifnotprotectionagainstdeliberate d framingundercolorofofficialsanction).Thus,weresistthe  temptationtoexpoundneedlesslyuponthefirstelementinthe l qualifiedimmunitycatechismandsimplypronouncethatrequirement h satisfied.  @* B  p   ` Thesecondquestioninthealgorithmaskswhetherthe 8!" stateofthelawatthetimeoftheputativeviolationaffordedthe "4$ defendantfairwarningthathisorherconductwas $& unconstitutional.SeeHopev.Pelzer,536U.S.730,741(2002). <&!( Inthecircumstancesofthiscase,thatquestionrequiresusto '8#* determinewhethertherightnottobeframedbylawenforcement )$, agentswasclearlyestablishedin1967"theyearinwhichthe @+&. appellantsareallegedtohavestartedtwistingtheirinvestigation  totargettheplaintiffs.Wethinkthatitwas. \  ` Fromajurisprudentialperspective,ourdelvinggoesback X someseventyyears.InMooneyv.Holohan,294U.S.103(1935)(per   curiam),theSupremeCourtexplainedthatdueprocess `  8 ` isarequirementthatcannotbedeemedtobe  \  satisfiedbymerenoticeandhearingifa  2  Statehascontrivedaconvictionthroughthe   pretenseofatrialwhichintruthisbutused   asameansofdeprivingadefendantofliberty d  throughadeliberatedeceptionofcourtand :  jurybythepresentationoftestimonyknownto `  beperjured.6` x` x Id.at112.Thefollowingterm,theCourtreaffirmedthattheDue  ProcessClauseforbidsconvictionspredicatedondeliberate > deceptions.SeeBrownv.Mississippi,297U.S.278,286(1936). : Sixyearslater,theCourtneededonlyasingleparagraphanda  citationtoMooneytobuttressitsconclusionthat"allegations B that[thepetitioner's]imprisonmentresultedfromperjured > testimony,knowinglyusedbytheStateauthoritiestoobtainhis  conviction,andfromthedeliberatesuppressionbythosesame F ! authoritiesofevidencefavorabletohim...sufficientlycharge !B# adeprivationofrightsguaranteedbytheFederalConstitution." #% Pylev.Kansas,317U.S.213,216(1942).Giventheseprecedents, J% ' itisnotsurprisingthat,asearlyas1951,thiscourtdescribed &F") Mooney'scorepremiseas"wellsettled."Cogginsv.O'Brien,188 (#+  F.2d130,138(1stCir.1951). N*%-  ` In1959,theSupremeCourtconfirmedthattheMooney   rightcoveredcircumstancesinwhich"theState,althoughnot \ solicitingfalseevidence,allowsittogouncorrectedwhenit X appears."Napuev.Illinois,360U.S.264,269(1959).Inraising   thebartothismodestlevel,theCourtrecognizedthatitsprior `  caselaw"establishedthataconvictionobtainedthroughuseof  \  falseevidence,knowntobesuchbyrepresentativesoftheState,   mustfallundertheFourteenthAmendment."Id.(citingMooney). d  TheCourtviewedsucharightas"implicitinanyconceptof `  orderedliberty."Id.Andin1967"theveryyearthatthe   violationsintheinstantcaseareallegedtohavebegun"Justice h Stewart,writingforaunanimousCourt,reiteratedthepoint: d 8 ` Morethan30yearsagothisCourtheldthat  theFourteenthAmendmentcannottoleratea  statecriminalconvictionobtainedbythe l knowinguseoffalseevidence.Therehasbeen B nodeviationfromthatestablishedprinciple.h` x` x Millerv.Pate,386U.S.1,7(1967)(citationsomitted).   ` Theappellantsresistthisimpressivearrayofauthority p  ontwofronts.First,theyaccusetheplaintiffsandthedistrict !l" courtofhavingdefinedtherightinquestiontoobroadly.In "$ theirview,modelingtherightasarighttobefreefroma t$& contrivedconviction"arightnottobeframedbythegovernment  &p!( "caststoowideanet.Theysuggestinsteadthattheplaintiffs' '#* allegationsshouldbesqueezedintoamorecircumscribedmoldand x)$, readassettingforthaBradyviolation.SeeBradyv.Maryland, $+t&. 373U.S.83,87(1963)(holdingthat"thesuppressionbythe  prosecutionofevidencefavorabletoanaccuseduponrequest \ violatesdueprocesswheretheevidenceismaterialeithertoguilt X ortopunishment").Havingerectedthisstrawman,theappellants   thenshredit:althoughBradywasdecidedpriorto1967,they `  assertthatitwasnotclearlyestablishedthen(indeed,itmaynot  \  beclearlyestablishedtoday)thatthedutiesimposedbyBrady   applytolawenforcementofficersundercircumstancesinwhichthe d  prosecutorisunawareofthecontrivance.See,e.g.,Bradyv. `  Dill,187F.3d104,114(1stCir.1999)(suggestingthatalaw   enforcementofficer"sometimesmaybeliable"forafailureto h reveal"knownexculpatoryinformation")(emphasissupplied);Reid d v.Simmons,163F.Supp.2d81,84(D.N.H.2001)(describing"the  circumstancesunderwhichpoliceofficersmaybeheldcivilly l liableforBradyviolations"as"amatterofconsiderable h uncertainty"),aff'd,47Fed.Appx.5(1stCir.2002)(percuriam),  cert.denied,124S.Ct.237(2003). p   ` Itiscertainlytruethatthemannerinwhicharightis !l" definedcanmakeorbreakaqualifiedimmunitydefense.Courts "$ mustbecarefulnottopermitanartfulpleadertoconvertthe t$& doctrineofqualifiedimmunityintoahollowsafeguardsimplyby  &p!( allegingaviolationofanexceedinglynebulousright.SeeWilson, '#* 526U.S.at61415;Hatchv.Dep'tforChildren,Youth&Their x)$, Families,274F.3d12,20(1stCir.2001).Courtsmustbeequally $+t&. careful,however,nottopermitadefendanttohijackthe  plaintiff'scomplaintandrecharacterizeitsallegationssoasto \ minimizehisorherliability. X  ` Here,theamendedcomplaints,fairlyread,arenot   susceptibletotheappellants'animadversions.Therightdefined `  bytheplaintiffsandrecognizedbythedistrictcourtdoesnot  \  evenapproachthelevelofgeneralitythoughttobeimpermissible.   See,e.g.,Anderson,483U.S.at639(discussingwhatlevelof d  generalityispermissiblewithrespecttodueprocessviolations); `  Hatch,274F.3dat20(same,withrespectto"therighttofamilial   integrity"and"theparentalinterestinthecare,custody,and h controlofchildren"). d  ` Theappellants'argumenthasanevendeeperflaw:it  restsonaselfservingmischaracterizationofthefactual l allegationssetoutintheamendedcomplaints.Theplaintiffshave h notpleadedaseparateclaimthattheirrightswereviolatedmerely  bytheappellants'failuretodivulgesomediscretepieceofBrady p  evidence.Rather,theyhaveeschewedsuchacourseinfavorofa !l" moresweepingaccusationthattheappellantsactivelyparticipated "$ inaplottosecureandsustainunjustconvictionsagainstinnocent t$& men.Thoughthisschemeincludessuballegationsthatoccasionally  &p!( involveBradyviolations(e.g.,suppressionofexculpatory '#* information),theoverallchargecannotbeshoehornedintothe x)$, relativelynarrowconfinesoftheBradyrubric.Asthedistrict $+t&. courtputit,the"individualallegationsofnondisclosure"are  notmeanttobeselfsustaining,but,rather,"areanintegralpart \ oftheoverallstory."Limone,271F.Supp.2dat366. X  ` Wehavesaidbeforethat"[t]hesumofanevidentiary   presentationmaywellbegreaterthanitsconstituentparts."N. `  HeelCorp.v.CompoIndus.,Inc.,851F.2d456,470(1stCir.1988)  \  (quotingBourjailyv.UnitedStates,483U.S.171,180(1987)).   Thataphorismispertinenthere.Takenasawhole,theunsavory d  enterprisechronicledintheamendedcomplaintsistoomultifaceted `  tofitwithintheintegumentoftheBradyright.Incontrast,it   fitscomfortablywithinthemoreexpansivecontoursoftheright h describedinMooney.TorestricttheplaintiffstoaBradyclaim d wouldrequireustodisregardtheforestandfocussinglemindedly  onaparticulartree.Thequalifiedimmunitydoctrinedoesnot l compelcourtstotakesomyopicaview. h  ` TheappellantsnextattempttotackleMooneyheadon.  EvenifMooneyfurnishestheappropriatebenchmark,thisthesis p  runs,thecircumstancesinMooneyanditspre1967progenyare !l" materiallydistinguishablefromthoseallegedbytheplaintiffs. "$ Accordingtotheappellants,thesewerecasesinwhichthefalsity t$& ofthetestimonywasuncontroverted"notcasesinwhichpublic  &p!( officialssimplypressedaviewofthefactswhich,though '#* ultimatelyprovenwrong,wasnotobviouslycontrived.Inamodest x)$, variationonthistheme,theappellantsaddthat,asof1967,there $+t&. wasnoclearlyestablishedrighttobefreefromconvictionbased  ontestimonyknownonlybylawenforcementofficers(andnotbythe \ prosecutingattorney)tobefalse. X  ` Wefindthesecontentionsunconvincing.Thefirst,which   atbottomchallengesthesufficiencyofthepleadings,iseasily `  defeated.Theseappealswerebroughtfollowingadecisionon  \  motionstodismissunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),and,assuch,   allthatisrequiredisthattheamendedcomplaintsallegeacts d  sufficienttoconstituteframingandknowledgeonthepartofthe `  appellants.SeeEducadoresPuertorriqueosenAcci;nv.Rey   Hernndez,___F.3d___,___(1stCir.2004)[No.031588,slipop. h at12](rejectingaheightenedpleadingstandardforcivilrights d cases).Whiletheplaintiffseventuallywillhavetoadduce  adequateevidencetosupporttheclaimthatCondonandWalshknew l Barboza'sstorywasapocryphal,theirbareallegationsofknowledge h sufficeatthisembryonicstageoftheproceedings.Seeid.   ` Theappellants'secondcontentionfaresnobetter. p  Althoughtheamendedcomplaintsdonotallegeguiltyknowledgeon !l" thepartoftheprosecutingattorney,nosuchavermentisnecessary "$ tostateanactionableclaim.ThedutythatMooneyanditspre t$& 1967progenyestablished"adutytorefrainfromprocuring  &p!( convictionsbythepresentationoftestimonyknowntobeperjurious '#* "extendedin1967,asnow,tolawenforcementofficersgenerally. x)$, TheSupremeCourtascribedthisdutybroadlytothesovereignand $+t&. itsagents.See,e.g.,Napue,360U.S.at269(attributingthe  dutyto"representativesoftheState");Pyle,317U.S.at216 \ (attributingthedutyto"Stateauthorities");Mooney,294U.S.at X 112(attributingthedutyto"theState").Itstrainscredulityto   suggestthatFBIagentsandpoliceofficers,dulysworntouphold `  thelaw,donotfallwithinthecompassoftheseproscriptions.  \   ` Wearenotthefirstcourttoreachthisconclusion.   CitingPyle,theFifthCircuitruledtothiseffectin1969.See d  Smithv.Florida,410F.2d1349,135051(5thCir.1969) `  (explainingthatpoliceviolatetherightdescribedinMooneyif   theysubornperjuryeventhoughtheydosowithouttheprosecutor's h knowledge).Evenmoretelling,theThirdCircuitconcludedin1958 d "nineyearsbeforeCondonandWalshareallegedtohaveembarked  ontheirnefariouscourseofconduct"thatPylehadsettledthis l veryissue.SeeCurranv.Delaware,259F.2d707,713(3dCir. h 1958).AnexaminationofthePylerecorddisclosedtotheThird  Circuit'ssatisfaction"thattheprosecutingofficerwasinnowise p  apartytoorcognizantoftheperjuredtestimonygivenbycertain !l" witnessesoftheStateofKansasorofthefactthatthelaw "$ enforcementofficershadtakenstepstoprocurefalsetestimony t$& favorabletotheprosecution."Id.Althoughtheprosecutorhad  &p!( beenkeptinthedark,thePyleCourtdeterminedthatthe '#* allegations,iftrue,wouldabridgetherightdescribedinMooney. x)$, SeePyle,317U.S.at216;seealsoCurran,259F.2dat713 $+t&. (relyingonPyle,reachingtheidenticalconclusion,andfinding  suchaviolation).WeagreewiththisinterpretationofPyleand, \ thus,rejecttheappellants'argumentthattheprosecutor's X complicitywasasinequanonofaMooneyclaimin1967.    ` Nordoestheplaintiffs'inabilitytoidentifyapre1967 `  scenariothatpreciselymirrorsthescandalousfactsofthiscase  \  ensurethesuccessoftheappellants'claimsofqualifiedimmunity.   Thereisnorequirementthatthefactsofpreviouscasesbe d  materiallysimilartothefactssubjudiceinordertotrumpa `  qualifiedimmunitydefense.Hope,536U.S.at73941;Hallv.   Ochs,817F.2d920,925(1stCir.1987).Generalstatementsofthe h lawarecapableofconveyingfairwarning.SeeUnitedStatesv. d Lanier,520U.S.259,27071(1997);Davisv.Rennie,264F.3d86,  114(1stCir.2001),cert.denied,535U.S.1053(2002).It l followslogicallythat,insomesituations,"ageneral h constitutionalrulealreadyidentifiedinthedecisionallawmay  applywithobviousclaritytothespecificconductinquestion." p  Lanier,520U.S.at271.Soitishere. !l"  ` Thatendsthisphaseofourarchivaljourneyintothe "$ annalsofconstitutionaljurisprudence.Weconclude,without t$& seriousquestion,thatMooneyanditspre1967progenyprovided  &p!( reasonablelawenforcementofficersfairwarningthatframing '#* innocentpersonswouldviolatetheconstitutionalrightsofthe x)$, falselyaccused. $+t&. @* C    ` Sincetherelevantrightandrulewereclearly x establishedandthecontoursoftherightweresufficientlywell $t definedatthecriticaltime(1967),wemustproceedtothethird   andfinalstepinthequalifiedimmunitypavane.Thispartofthe |  inquiryconsiderswhetheritwouldhavebeencleartoan ( x  objectivelyreasonableofficial,situatedsimilarlytoaparticular $  appellant,thattheactionstakenoromittedcontravenedthe   clearlyestablishedright.SeeSaucier,533U.S.at202;Hatch, ,|  274F.3dat20;seealsoAnderson,483U.S.at639(emphasizing ( thatthestandardisanobjectiveone).Whilethefirsttwoparts  oftheinquirydealwithabstractlegalrules,thefinalstep 0 dependsonthefactsofagivencase.Hatch,274F.3dat24. ,  ` Onanappealfromanorderdenyingamotiontodismiss"  asituationinwhichthecourtofappealsisrequiredtocreditthe 4 allegationsofthecomplaint"thefirsttwostepswillfrequently 0 goalongwaytowardresolvingthethird.Thiscaseaptly   illustratesthatpoint.Giventhefactsthataresetoutinthe 8!" amendedcomplaints,wehavescantdifficultyinconcludingthatit "4$ shouldhavebeentransparentlycleartoareasonableofficer $& situatedsimilarlytoeitherCondonorWalshthathisactions <&!( violatedtheconstitutionalrightsofLimone,Greco,andTameleo. '8#*  ` WestartwithCondon.BothcomplaintsallegethatCondon )$, wasreliablyinformedthatDeeganhadbeenexecutedbyacrewthat @+&. includedJosephBarboza,VincentFlemmi,RoyFrench,Ronald  Cassesso,andJosephMartin;thatheknew,basedonconversations \ withBarboza,thatBarbozawouldcommitperjurybyswearingnot X onlythatFlemmihadnoinvolvementinthemurderbutalsothat   threeinnocentmen(Limone,Greco,andTameleo)hadhelpedto `  perpetratethecrime;thathenonethelessdevelopedBarbozaasa  \  witnessandturnedhimovertotheSuffolkCountydistrict   attorney,knowingthatBarboza'sfalsetestimonywouldbeusedto d  prosecuteLimone,Greco,andTameleoforacrimetheydidnot `  commit;thathefailedtodiscloseexculpatoryevidencebefore,   during,andafterthetrial;andthatheintercededonBarboza's h behalfinasubsequentmurderprosecutionwithaviewtoward d ensuringBarboza'scontinuedsilenceandcoveringuphisown  misdeeds.Itisplainbeyondhopeofcontradictionthata l reasonableofficer,confrontedwiththesamecircumstances,would h haveunderstoodthatthisbehaviorinfractedtheplaintiffs'  constitutionalrights. p   ` Tobesure,Condonarguesthathedeservesqualified !l" immunityinspiteoftheseallegationsbecausetheamended "$ complaintsdescribevitalreportsashavingbeenreceivedby t$& anotherFBIagent(H.PaulRico)and/orbytheFBI'sBostonoffice  &p!( "notbyCondonpersonally.Wedonotthinkthatthisisan '#* entirelyfaircharacterizationoftheamendedcomplaints.Evenif x)$, itwere,theplaintiffs,onaRule12(b)(6)motion,areentitledto $+t&. haveallplausibleinferencesdrawnintheirfavor.See  Educadores,___F.3dat___[slipop.at2];LaChapellev. \ BerkshireLifeIns.Co.,142F.3d507,508(1stCir.1998).The X amendedcomplaintsrevealthatCondonwasstationedattheFBI's   Bostonoffice,thatRicowashispartner,andthatbothwere `  membersofthejointfederalstatetaskforceassembledto  \  investigatethemurder.Thesefactssupportaplausibleinference   thatthetwosharedthereportspertainingtotheinvestigation. d   ` ThefactualallegationsanentWalsharesimilar,although `  notidentical,tothoseinvolvingCondon.Bothcomplaintsallege   thatWalshknew,basedinpartoninconsistentstatementsthathe h tookfromBarboza,thatBarbozawouldfalselyattestthatLimone, d Greco,andTameleomurderedDeegan;thathenonetheless  participatedinthedevelopmentofBarbozaasawitnesswith l respecttotheprosecutionoftheplaintiffs;thathefailedto h discloseexculpatoryevidencebefore,during,andafterthetrial  (includingacalendarallegedlyfurnishedtohimthatwouldhave p  providedpowerfulsupportforGreco'salibidefense);andthathe !l" engagedinnumerousartificestoconcealtheidentitiesofthe "$ actualkillers. t$&  ` Walshlabelstheseallegations"conclusory"andlaments  &p!( thattheamendedcomplaintspresentnofactspecificaverments '#*  showingthathe,asamunicipalpoliceofficer,wasprivytothe x)$, informationgleanedfromFBIinformantsandinterviews.This  counterattackfails. \   ` ThefactualallegationspertainingdirectlytoWalsh, X combinedwiththeplausibleinferencesthatmustbedrawninthe   plaintiffs'favor,sufficetosurviveamotiontodismiss.See `  Educadores,___F.3dat___[slipop.at2].Walshwasanactive  \  memberofthejointfederalstatetaskforce"afactthatsupports   aplausibleinferencethathewasprivytoinformationgatheredby d  theothermembersoftheteam(includingCondonandRico).It `  shouldhavebeenobvioustoareasonableofficer,confrontedwith   thesecircumstances,thatthisbehaviorabridgedtheplaintiffs' h constitutionalrights. d  ` Insum,wesharethedistrictcourt'sviewthat,by1967,  "[no]reasonablelawenforcementofficerwouldhavethoughtit l permissibletoframesomebodyforacrimeheorshedidnot h commit."Limone,271F.Supp.2dat36566.Takingthefacts  allegedintheamendedcomplaintsastrue,weholdthatneither p  appellantisentitledtoqualifiedimmunityatthisjuncture.We !l" add,ofcourse,thatthisrulingdoesnotprecludetheappellants "$ fromreassertingthatdefense,onamorefullydevelopedrecord, t$& eitheratsummaryjudgmentorattrial.  &p!(  III.THEFAVORABLETERMINATIONDEFENSE  '#*  ` Ourworkhereisnotdone.Limonesucceededinhaving )$, hisconvictionsetasidein2001,seeCommonwealthv.Limone,2001 @+&. WL30494,at*8(Mass.Super.Ct.2001),andthedistrictattorney  subsequentlydeclinedfurtherprosecution.GrecoandTameleodied \ inprisonbeforetheycouldsecuresimilarremediation.Intheir X motionstodismiss,theappellantsarguedthatthelackof   favorableterminationsprecludestheGrecoandTameleoplaintiffs `  frompursuingtheirclaimsfordamages.SeeHeckv.Humphrey,512  \  U.S.477,48687(1994)(holdingthataplaintiff,inorderto   recoverdamagesforanallegedlyunconstitutionalconviction,must d  showafavorableterminationoftheunderlyingconviction); `  Figueroav.Rivera,147F.3d77,80(1stCir.1998) (same).The   districtcourtrejectedthisdefense,holdingthattheGrecoand h TameleoplaintiffscouldridepiggybackonthevacationofLimone's d convictiontosatisfythefavorableterminationrequirementunder  atheoryof"constructivereversal,"orinthealternative,that l anyfailuretosecurefavorableterminationwasexcusedby h allegationsof"governmentwrongdoingthateffectivelydenied  accesstopostconvictionremedies."Limone,271F.Supp.2dat p  361. !l"  ` Theappellantsaskustoreviewthisdeterminationhere "$ andnow.Thatrequestrunsheadlongintothegeneralrulethat t$& onlyfinaljudgmentsandordersareimmediatelyappealableincivil  &p!( cases.SeeEspinalDominguezv.PuertoRico,352F.3d490,495 '#* (1stCir.2003)(citing28U.S.C.1291).Thisruleadmitsof x)$, exceptions,however,andonejudgemadeexceptionallowsfor $+t&. interlocutoryreviewofanorderrejectingaqualifiedimmunity  defensesolongastheorderturnsonapurelylegalquestion. \ See,e.g.,Stella,63F.3dat7374.Theappellantsassertthatwe X mayusethisexceptionasavehicletoreviewtheHeckissueas   well.Wedemur. `   ` Federalcourtslonghaverecognizedthatinterlocutory  \  reviewofadenialofqualifiedimmunity"doesnotinandofitself   conferjurisdictionoverothercontestedissuesinthecase." d  RoqueRodriguezv.LemaMoya,926F.2d103,105(1stCir.1991). `  Toovercomethisobstacle,theappellantsinviteustoembracethe   seldomuseddoctrineofpendentappellatejurisdiction.SeeSwint h v.ChambersCountyComm'n,514U.S.35,5051(1995);Nieves d Mrquezv.PuertoRico,353F.3d108,123(1stCir.2003).We  declinetheinvitation. l  ` TheSupremeCourtrepeatedlyhascautionedthat h exceptionstothefinaljudgmentruleshouldbenarrowlyconstrued.  See,e.g.,DigitalEquip.Corp.v.DesktopDirect,Inc.,511U.S. p  863,868(1994).Inanefforttoavoidneedlessencroachmentson !l" thefinaljudgmentrule,wehavebeenquitesparinginour "$ endorsementofpendentappellatejurisdiction.SeeFletcherv. t$& TownofClinton,196F.3d41,55(1stCir.1999)(notingthatthe  &p!( exerciseofpendentappellatejurisdictionis"discouraged"); '#* RoqueRodriguez,926F.2dat105n.2(classifyingthisrestraintas x)$, "selfimposed").Thus,wehaverequiredthat,atabareminimum, $+t&. apartypromotingtheexerciseofpendentappellatejurisdiction  demonstrateeitherthatthependentissueisinextricably \ intertwinedwiththeissueconferringtherightofappealorthat X reviewofthependentissueisessentialtoensuremeaningful   reviewofthelinchpinissue.See,e.g.,NievesMrquez,353F.3d `  at123;Subohv.Dist.Atty'sOfficeoftheSuffolkDist.,298F.3d  \  81,97(1stCir.2002);seealsoClintonv.Jones,520U.S.681,   707n.41(1997).Becausethesetwoconsiderationswerelimnedby d  theCourtinSwint,514U.S.at51,wesometimesrefertothemas `  theSwintcriteria.    ` Here,thelinchpinissueandthependentissuecannot h fairlybedescribedasintertwined,letaloneinextricably d intertwined.Whereastheformer(qualifiedimmunity)focuses  principallyontheappellants'conductleadinguptothe l plaintiffs'convictions,thelatter(favorabletermination)entails h anexaminationofpostconvictionevents.Thefactthatwealready  haveconductedanexhaustivereviewofthedistrictcourt's p  qualifiedimmunityrulingwithoutneedingtotouchuponthe !l" favorableterminationissue,seesupraPartII,makesmanifestthis "$ lackofimbrication.Bythesametoken,itconclusivelyproves t$& thattheexerciseofpendentappellatejurisdictionisnot  &p!( essentialtoourabilitytoconductmeaningfulreviewofthe '#* linchpinissue.Onthatscorealone,thiscaseisanunfit x)$, candidatefortheinvocationofpendentappellatejurisdiction. $+t&.  ` Theappellantsstrivetoparrythisthrustbyarguing  thatfailuretosatisfytheSwintcriteriashouldbartheexercise \ ofpendentappellatejurisdictiononlywhenthepartyappealingthe X linchpinissueandthepartyappealingthependentissueare   different.Theypositthatwhere,ashere,thesamepartiesseek `  reviewofbothissues,pendentappellatejurisdictionmaybe  \  justifiedonthebasisoffairnessandefficiencyconcerns.See,   e.g.,Jungquistv.SheikhSultanBinKhalifaAlNahyan,115F.3d d  1020,102627(D.C.Cir.1997)(exercisingpendentappellate `  jurisdictiononthatbasiswhenthesamepartiessoughtreviewof   bothissues);GildaMarx,Inc.v.WildwoodExercise,Inc.,85F.3d h 675,679&n.4(D.C.Cir.1996)(decliningtoreadfulfillmentof d theSwintcriteriaasanabsoluteconditionprecedenttothe  exerciseofpendentappellatejurisdiction).Theytellusthat l exercisingpendentappellatejurisdictionintheinstantcasewould h allowfortheearlyresolutionofapotentiallydispositiveissue,  thuscateringtofairnessandefficiencyconcerns. p   ` Wethinkthattheappellants'positionignoresreality. !l" Thereisnosoundreasonwhytheidentityofthepartiesshould "$ havedecretorysignificanceindecidingwhethertoexercisependent t$& appellatejurisdiction.ThiscourthasusedtheSwintcriteriaas  &p!( thebenchmarkforpendentappellatejurisdictioninallsortsof '#* cases,includingcasesinwhichthepartyappealingthependent x)$, issuewasalsoappealingthelinchpinissue.See,e.g.,Nieves $+t&. Mrquez,353F.3dat123;Suboh,298F.3dat97.SotootheSecond  Circuit.SeeReinv.SocialistPeople'sLibyanArabJamahiriya, \ 162F.3d748,757(2dCir.1998)(statingthat"pendentissues X raisedbythepartythathastherighttobringaninterlocutory   appealareatleastasgreatathreattothefinalorderschemeas `  arependentissuesraisedbyotherparties").Severalothercourts  \  ofappealshavelikewiseendorsedauniversalapplicationofthe   Swintcriteria.Seeid.at758(collectingcases).Consequently, d  weholdexplicitlythatwhenapartywhohastherighttobringan `  interlocutoryappealononeissueattemptssimultaneouslytoraise   asecondissuethatordinarilywouldbebarredbythefinal h judgmentrule,wewillnotexerciseappellatejurisdictionoverthe d pendentissueunlessoneoftheSwintcriteriaissatisfied.   ` Giventhisparadigm,instancesdemandingtheexerciseof l pendentappellatejurisdictionarelikelytobefewandfar h between.Thisisnotoneofthem.Weconclude,therefore,thatit  wouldbeultracrepidarian"andwrong"forustoexercisependent p  appellatejurisdictionoverthefavorableterminationissuejust !l" fortheHeckofit. "$  IV.CONCLUSION  t$&  ` Wesummarizesuccinctly.Atthisearlystageofthe <&!( litigation,theappellantshavenotdemonstratedtheirentitlement '8#* toqualifiedimmunity.Becausethatistheonlyissueproperly )$, beforeusontheseinterlocutoryappeals,weneedgonofurther. @+&. Ї Affirmed.