Turner v. McDonough

Background

Ronal G. Turner, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 based on alleged witness tampering and other irregularities during an earlier employment-discrimination trial involving the Department of Veterans Affairs. Turner alleged that witnesses Angela Watford and Craig Crawford changed or contradicted testimony favorable to him, that his attorneys were restricted from speaking with those witnesses before trial, and that other witnesses made false statements about his work performance. He sought money damages and an investigation to determine whether a crime had occurred.

Turner named Denis McDonough, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and five VA employees: Angela Watford, Craig Crawford, Patty Cole, Pedro Gonzalez, and Julia Anderson. Because the defendants were federal employees, the court treated the constitutional claims as claims under Bivens, the limited legal framework for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, rather than claims under Section 1983, which generally concerns state officials.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that McDonough was sued only in his official capacity because Turner alleged no personal involvement by him. Federal agencies and federal officials sued in their official capacities are immune from constitutional damages claims unless the United States has consented to suit or Congress has removed that immunity. The court concluded that Turner had not identified a statute removing that immunity, so it dismissed the damages claims against McDonough.

The court also dismissed Turner’s damages claims against Watford, Crawford, Cole, Gonzalez, and Anderson. Witnesses have absolute immunity from damages liability for testimony given in court, even when the testimony is alleged to be false. The court explained that this protection helps preserve the truth-seeking process at trial, while other sanctions—such as prosecution for perjury—can address false testimony.

The court separately dismissed any claims seeking a criminal investigation, prosecution, or arrest of the defendants. A private person cannot initiate or direct a federal criminal prosecution, and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when the person bringing the claim lacks standing to seek that relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed Turner’s complaint because he sought relief from immune defendants and because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Turner fee-free appeal status. All other pending matters were terminated, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment. The opinion noted that relief from the judgment in Turner’s earlier employment-discrimination case would have to be sought through the procedures available in that earlier case, such as a motion to alter or amend the judgment or an appeal.