Richter v. Ausmus
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-08300-WHO
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Richter v. Ausmus, Judge Orrick denied Richter’s motion to reconsider dismissal of her fabrication-of-evidence claim.
Julia Richter’s third cause of action was not reinstated; the defendants named in the case were not required to defend that claim based on this order.
What happened
In Richter v. Ausmus, Julia Richter asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of her third cause of action, which alleged fabrication of evidence. The earlier order had dismissed several causes of action with prejudice because Richter had not been criminally prosecuted.
Richter argued that she did not need to have faced criminal prosecution to bring a fabrication-of-evidence claim. She also argued that a criminal referral was enough, that Fifth Amendment protections could apply to quasi-criminal proceedings, and that the defendants should be prevented from arguing that she was not prosecuted.
Judge William H. Orrick denied the motion. He said Richter could potentially bring other due-process claims, but could not bring a separate fabrication-of-evidence claim without a criminal prosecution. He also said a criminal referral is not the same as criminal charges and that her complaint did not allege a violation of her right against self-incrimination.
The detailed version
- Richter v. Ausmus · No. 3:19-cv-08300-WHO
- William Orrick
- May 19, 2020
Background
Julia Richter moved to alter or amend the court’s March 24, 2020 order. That earlier order had dismissed with prejudice her third, fifth, tenth, seventeenth, and twenty-first causes of action. In this motion, Richter sought reconsideration of the dismissal of her third cause of action.
The court stated that Richter had not identified arguments properly made under Rule 59 or Rule 60, which provide limited grounds for changing or reconsidering a judgment or order. The court nevertheless addressed her arguments for clarity.
Arguments and Analysis
The earlier order dismissed Richter’s third, fifth, tenth, and seventeenth causes of action with prejudice because she had not been subject to criminal prosecution. The court had also explained that she might be able to state other substantive or procedural due-process claims based on deprivation of liberty or property interests, including employment interests, or based on conduct that “shocked the conscience.”
Richter argued that a fabrication-of-evidence claim did not require criminal prosecution. The court rejected that argument, explaining that she could not assert a separate fabrication-of-evidence claim because she had not been subjected to criminal prosecution.
Richter also argued that a criminal referral was sufficient for causes of action requiring criminal prosecution. The court disagreed, distinguishing a criminal referral from criminal charges. Criminal charges result in a criminal proceeding, such as an indictment; a criminal referral does not necessarily lead to criminal proceedings, as the court said occurred here.
Richter further argued that her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination could apply in “quasi-criminal” proceedings. The court said her complaint did not allege that this right had been violated because she had not been compelled to testify against herself. The court noted that it had granted Richter leave to amend claims alleging retaliation for exercising her Fifth Amendment right.
Finally, Richter argued that the defendants should be prevented from arguing that she had not been criminally prosecuted. The court said whether she had been subject to criminal proceedings was a factual issue governed, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, by the allegations in her complaint rather than by the defendants’ arguments. The court concluded that the complaint did not allege that Richter had been criminally prosecuted.
Ruling
Judge William H. Orrick denied Richter’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not alter the earlier dismissal of the third cause of action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.