Turner v. McDonough

Background

Ronal G. Turner, appearing without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He alleged that witness tampering and other irregularities occurred during the 2021 jury trial of his earlier employment-discrimination case against the Department of Veterans Affairs. He sought money damages and an investigation into whether a crime had occurred.

Turner named Denis McDonough, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and five Veterans Affairs employees: Angela Watford, Craig Crawford, Patty Cole, Pedro Gonzalez, and Julia Anderson. He alleged that Watford and Crawford changed or contradicted testimony they had previously agreed to give, that his attorneys were restricted from speaking with those witnesses before trial, that job candidates were questioned about his lawsuit, and that Cole and Gonzalez made false statements about his work performance.

Claims and analysis

Although Turner cited Sections 1983 and 1985 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the court explained that claims alleging constitutional violations by federal employees are generally analyzed under Bivens, the federal counterpart to lawsuits against state officials under Section 1983. The court did not decide whether Turner had an implied right to sue under Bivens because it concluded that the defendants were immune from the claims.

The court ruled that McDonough was sued only in his official capacity. Turner did not allege that McDonough was personally involved in violating his rights; instead, Turner sought to hold him responsible because he was the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The court therefore dismissed the damages claims against McDonough because the United States, its agencies, and federal officials sued in their official capacities are protected by sovereign immunity unless the United States has consented to the suit or Congress has removed that protection. The court found no applicable waiver for Turner's claims.

The court also dismissed all claims against Watford, Crawford, Cole, Gonzalez, and Anderson based on witness immunity. Witnesses are absolutely protected from damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings, even when a plaintiff alleges that the testimony was false. The court explained that this protection is intended to prevent fear of later lawsuits from discouraging testimony or affecting what witnesses say.

Turner also sought a criminal investigation or the arrest and prosecution of people he believed had harmed him. The court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear them. A private person cannot require prosecutors to bring a criminal case, and the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint because Turner sought relief from immune defendants and because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court declined to allow Turner to amend because it found that the defects could not be fixed by amendment. All other pending matters were terminated, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Turner permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. It noted that any request for relief from the judgment in the earlier employment-discrimination case had to be made through the procedures available in that earlier case or through an appeal, not through this new action.