DeRouseau v. Martello

Background

Kyle DeRouseau, representing himself, sued four police officers. He also attempted to sue on behalf of his minor child, K.D. DeRouseau alleged that he and K.D. were attacked on January 18, 2019; that he brought the officers to an unidentified residence afterward; and that the officers violated his rights by leaving K.D. in a dangerous situation. He also alleged that he was falsely charged on the day of the attack and received a second false charge one year later. He sought unspecified damages and relied on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and 18 U.S.C. § 242.

The court had allowed DeRouseau to proceed without paying filing fees. When a person proceeds without paying those fees, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

Claims on behalf of K.D.

The court dismissed without prejudice any claims DeRouseau asserted for K.D. Section 1654 allows a person to represent himself or herself, or to be represented by a licensed attorney. Under Second Circuit precedent, a parent who is not a lawyer generally cannot represent a child in federal court. The opinion states that DeRouseau alleged no facts showing that he was an attorney.

Failure-to-protect claims

The court treated DeRouseau’s allegations about the officers leaving K.D. in a dangerous situation as a possible substantive due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Generally, the Constitution does not require the government to protect people from harm caused by private individuals. The court identified two exceptions: a special relationship between the state and the victim, or conduct by state agents that created or increased the danger.

The court held that DeRouseau alleged no facts showing either exception. He also did not allege conduct so extreme that it “shocked the conscience,” another requirement for this type of claim. The court therefore dismissed the failure-to-assist or failure-to-protect claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

False-charge claims

The court held that DeRouseau did not provide enough facts about the alleged false charges. He did not identify the nature of the charges, explain whether they resulted from the attack or another event, or allege that any named defendant brought them.

The court also considered whether the allegations could support a claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution, which is a civil claim alleging that criminal proceedings were brought without probable cause and with malice. The court held that DeRouseau did not allege that a defendant initiated a prosecution without probable cause or that the proceedings ended in his favor. He also did not allege the named defendants’ active roles in the prosecution. The court therefore dismissed any malicious-prosecution claim for failure to state a claim.

Claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242

The court dismissed the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because that statute is a federal criminal statute, and a private person cannot bring a federal criminal prosecution. The court treated this claim as failing to state a claim for relief.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile, particularly concerning the false-charge allegations, it granted DeRouseau 30 days’ leave to replead any potentially viable claim. The court instructed that an amended complaint should identify the dates and nature of the charges, when they were dismissed, who initiated the prosecution, and the role of each person involved.

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), dismissed without prejudice all claims asserted on behalf of K.D., and terminated the other pending matters. If DeRouseau did not amend within 30 days, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing his claims for the reasons in the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.