Broussard v. Hollenhorst

Background

Aaron Rhy Broussard, representing himself, filed a civil-rights action while he was the defendant in a pending federal criminal prosecution. He filed an original complaint, an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, a motion for a temporary restraining order, and an amended complaint. The amended complaint became the action’s operative pleading because it was filed before the original complaint had been served.

The amended complaint was 54 pages long. It named 23 defendants and several groups of unnamed defendants and purported to assert 49 causes of action. Broussard sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, declaratory relief, expungement of relevant conduct from his criminal or arrest record, and preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping his pending criminal prosecution. His temporary-restraining-order motion also sought to halt the criminal case and obtain his immediate release from detention.

Conditions-of-confinement claims

The amended complaint included allegations about Broussard’s conditions of confinement. Although he placed those allegations within a proposed negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, the court liberally construed the self-represented pleading as potentially asserting federal constitutional claims.

The court dismissed those potential conditions-of-confinement claims without prejudice because they were misjoined with claims primarily challenging Broussard’s prosecution and trial. The court explained that unrelated claims against different defendants generally must be brought in separate actions. The dismissal without prejudice allowed Broussard to raise such claims in later litigation, subject to applicable joinder limitations.

Claims against federal prosecutors

The court dismissed with prejudice the claims against Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Melinda A. Williams, Charles J. Novats, Jr. [sic], W. Anders Folk, Erica McDonald, Michelle L. Olshefski, David J. Freed, and Bruce Brandler. Broussard attempted to proceed against federal prosecutors under a constitutional damages theory known as a Bivens action.

The court held that absolute prosecutorial immunity applies to the prosecutors’ alleged conduct. The allegations concerned charging decisions and conduct related to developing and issuing indictments, which the court characterized as prosecutorial conduct. The court stated that this immunity covers such conduct even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or improper motives. It also noted that immunity does not cover every administrative or investigative function, but concluded that the allegations here involved protected prosecutorial functions.

Effect of the pending criminal prosecution

The court concluded that Broussard could not use this civil action to enjoin his ongoing federal criminal prosecution. It rejected his argument that extraordinary circumstances justified interference, reasoning that he could present a defense in the criminal case.

The court dismissed without prejudice the remaining portions of the amended complaint seeking injunctive relief. For the remaining claims seeking monetary relief, the court stayed the action pending final resolution of Broussard’s federal criminal prosecution, including all appeals. Broussard must notify the court through a filing within 30 days after those proceedings are resolved.

Remaining motions and disposition

The court granted Broussard’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs based on his financial representations.

The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. It found that Broussard had not provided the written certification or explanation required for emergency relief without notice to the defendants, who had not yet been served. The court also found that the motion did not address the required factors for a temporary restraining order, including likely irreparable harm, the balance of harms, likelihood of success, and the public interest.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that the amended complaint remain the operative complaint, dismissed the specified claims, stayed the monetary-relief claims, granted the fee application, and denied the temporary restraining-order motion.