Boulanger v. Holets

Background

Eugene Lionel Boulanger alleged that Jonathan Holets, the Deputy County Attorney of St. Louis County, violated his due-process rights, deprived him of rights under color of law, and committed prosecutorial misconduct while prosecuting a state criminal case in which Boulanger was a victim. Boulanger and his brother had given Tracy Lynn Duffrin money after she said she needed it for medical expenses and would repay them. The brothers later reported that they had collectively provided between $160,000 and $180,000 or more. They obtained a $160,000 civil judgment against Duffrin.

Duffrin was later charged with theft by swindle and pleaded guilty to felony theft. Holets was the prosecutor. The state agreed to a stay of adjudication and restitution of $1,498, based in part on the amount supported by personal checks and the existence of the brothers’ civil judgment. Boulanger and his brother were dissatisfied with the charges, plea agreement, restitution, and Holets’s handling of the case.

Boulanger first brought an action against Holets in state court and voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice. He then brought this action, which Holets removed to federal court. Boulanger sought $8 million in damages. The opinion states that Boulanger was proceeding without a lawyer and that his filings made it difficult to determine the precise claims and supporting facts. Holets moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Claims and legal standard

Holets understood Boulanger to be asserting claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including a due-process claim and a prosecutorial-misconduct claim. Boulanger did not dispute Holets’s characterization of the claims.

The court explained that a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The complaint must contain enough factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. Courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true but do not accept purely conclusory statements or legal arguments as facts.

Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim

The court agreed that the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protection applies directly only to the federal government and federal action, while Boulanger identified only state actors. But because Boulanger also referred to the Fourteenth Amendment and was proceeding without a lawyer, the court treated his allegations as asserting a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim rather than dismissing them on that technical ground.

The claim nevertheless failed. A due-process claim requires a recognized liberty or property interest. Boulanger did not identify a cognizable interest in having Holets obtain a particular result in Duffrin’s criminal case. The court relied on the rule that a private citizen does not have a judicially recognized interest in another person’s prosecution or nonprosecution. The court dismissed Boulanger’s Fourteenth Amendment claim with prejudice.

18 U.S.C. § 242 claim

The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not provide a private right of action. In other words, a private person cannot use that criminal statute as the basis for a civil lawsuit seeking damages. The court dismissed Boulanger’s § 242 claim against Holets with prejudice.

Section 1983 claim

Section 1983 allows a claim against a person acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court explained that when a local official is sued under § 1983 without an express statement that the official is being sued individually, the suit is treated as an official-capacity suit. An official-capacity suit against a local official is treated as a suit against the local government.

For a local government to be liable under § 1983, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that a government policy, custom, or deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise caused the constitutional violation. Boulanger’s complaint did not identify any St. Louis County policy, custom, or training practice, or plausibly allege that one caused his injury. The court therefore found no viable official-capacity, or municipal-liability, claim.

The court also held that prosecutorial immunity barred Boulanger’s claims to the extent they challenged Holets’s actions in his prosecutorial role during the state criminal proceedings. That immunity protects prosecutors from liability for conduct closely connected to initiating and presenting a criminal case, and the court said allegations of improper motive do not remove that protection for prosecutorial functions.

Disposition

The court granted Jonathan Holets’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as set forth in the order. It dismissed Eugene Lionel Boulanger’s Complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.