Roughani v. Draper

Background

Sina Roughani filed a request for review of the court’s October 30, 2024 order. The court construed the request as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from that earlier order. The court concluded that only Rule 60(b)(6), the provision allowing relief for other reasons that justify it, appeared potentially applicable. Relief under that provision requires extraordinary circumstances, such as circumstances that denied a party a full and fair opportunity to litigate and prevented adequate redress.

Capacity of the Claims

Roughani’s request could be read to argue that the earlier Report and Recommendation and October 30 order wrongly treated his claims against Andrew Job Draper as official-capacity claims. The court rejected that argument. Roughani’s complaint and objections did not say that Draper was being sued in his individual capacity. Under the rule applied by the court, when a filing does not identify the capacity in which an official is sued, the suit is treated as an official-capacity suit.

The court also found that Roughani’s filings described conduct by Draper while acting in an official role. In addition, the court stated that even if Roughani had brought individual-capacity claims, Draper would be entitled to prosecutorial immunity for actions taken as a prosecutor in judicial proceedings.

Prosecutorial Immunity and Failure to State a Claim

The court agreed with Roughani that absolute prosecutorial immunity does not cover official-capacity claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. The court acknowledged that the October 30 order had been incorrect to adopt the earlier recommendation about prosecutorial immunity without clearly distinguishing between damages and injunctive relief.

That correction did not change the result. The court explained that immunity was not the only basis for the earlier dismissal after review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The earlier recommendation had also identified the absence of a private right of action for some statutes cited in the complaint and the lack of specific allegations about Draper’s conduct. After reviewing the complaint again, the court found only conclusory statements and no clear allegations identifying conduct by Draper, acting as a prosecutor, that violated Roughani’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim and was subject to dismissal without prejudice.

Disposition

The court denied Roughani’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and directed the clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the October 30, 2024 order. The opinion states that the complaint’s dismissal was without prejudice for failure to state a claim.