Lefebure v. D'Aquilla

• Decision Date: 09 February 2021
• Docket Number: consolidated with No. 19-30989,No. 19-30702,19-30702
• Citation: Lefebure v. D'Aquilla, 987 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2021)
• Parties: Priscilla LEFEBURE, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel D'AQUILLA, 20th Judicial District, individually and in his official capacity as District Attorney, Defendant—Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

987 F.3d 446

Priscilla LEFEBURE, Plaintiff—Appellee,

v.Samuel D'AQUILLA, 20th Judicial District, individually and in his official capacity as District Attorney, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 19-30702

consolidated with No. 19-30989

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED February 9, 2021

Jack Rutherford, Rutherford Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Ralph Roger Alexis, III, Esq., Glenn B. Adams, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, C. Frank Holthaus, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant - Appellant.

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Graves and Ho, Circuit Judges.

James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:

The allegations in this case are sickening.Priscilla Lefebure alleges that Barrett Boeker, her cousin's husband, raped and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions at his home on the grounds of the Louisiana state prison where he serves as an assistant warden.Lefebure further alleges that Samuel D'Aquilla, the district attorney, conspired with Boeker and others—including Boeker's counsel, a relative of D'Aquilla's—to prevent her from seeking justice for these crimes.It is undisputed that D'Aquilla declined to prosecute Boeker.And according to Lefebure, he did not even bother to seriously investigate him.In response, she filed this suit against D'Aquilla, as well as Boeker and others, on a variety of constitutional and statutory claims.

Under established precedent, however, we have no jurisdiction to reach her claims against D'Aquilla, because she has no standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring them.As the Supreme Court has instructed, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536(1973).The district court theorized that Linda R.S. does not apply here, because Lefebure complains not about the lack of prosecution, but about the lack of investigation.But we do not read Linda R.S. the same way.To the contrary, Linda R.S. makes clear that "a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution ."Id.(emphasis added).

Not surprisingly, then, every court to our knowledge to have addressed this question prior to this case agrees that a crime victim may not challenge a prosecutor's failure to investigate or prosecute his perpetrator.Lefebure does not cite any authority to the contrary, either here or before the district court—indeed, she did not file a brief in this appeal.Accordingly, we have no choice but to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to D'Aquilla.

I.

Forced to evacuate her home in Baton Rouge due to flooding, Lefebure resided temporarily with her cousin and her cousin's husband, Boeker.Their home is located on the grounds of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, where Boeker serves as an assistant warden.

Lefebure alleges that Boeker raped and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions there.First, he raped her in front of a mirror, where he made her watch, while telling her that no one would hear her scream.Later, he sexually assaulted her with a foreign object, after picking the lock of the room where she was attempting to hide.Afterward, she tried to lock the door again, but he again proceeded to pick the lock and blocked her escape.

Following these repeated assaults, Lefebure received a sexual assault examination, revealing bruises, redness, and irritation on her arms, legs, and cervix.Boeker was arrested a few weeks later for second degree rape.But no indictment or conviction followed.

According to Lefebure, D'Aquilla, the district attorney for Louisiana's 20th Judicial District, conspired with Boeker as well as West Feliciana Parish Sheriff J. Austin Daniel, and Boeker's defense counsel, a relative of the district attorney, to ensure that he would not be properly investigated for his crimes.Specifically, she claims that D'Aquilla (1) refused to collect and examine the rape kit; (2) made handwritten notes on the police report highlighting only purported discrepancies in Lefebure's account of the events and presented that report to the grand jury; (3) declined to meet or speak with her about the alleged assaults before the grand jury proceeding; and (4) failed to call various witnesses who could have corroborated her version of the events.She further alleges that they gave Boeker preferential treatment, low bond, and ultimately ensured that he would not be indicted for his alleged assault.

Lefebure filed suit against D'Aquilla and the others, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.With respect to D'Aquilla, she brought various claims under (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution(Right to Individual Dignity);(2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution(Right to Due Process);(3)42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and1985 for civil conspiracy to violate civil rights; and (4)42 U.S.C. § 1983 for abuse of process.

D'Aquilla filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for, respectively, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and asserted various defenses.

The district court granted in part and denied in part D'Aquilla's motion to dismiss.Lefebure v. Boeker , 390 F. Supp. 3d 729, 768(M.D. La.2019).It denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that Lefebure had standing.Id. at 746.It also dismissed some of her claims, and rejected many of D'Aquilla's asserted defenses as to her other claims.Id. at 747–50, 758, 763, 767–68.

The district court certified the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).D'Aquilla moved in this court for leave to appeal from the interlocutory order, and we granted the motion.

On appeal, Lefebure made four requests to extend her briefing deadline, between June and August 2020.We granted each of those requests, but then denied her fifth request for an extension.In September, we gave her notice that she could submit a motion to file a brief out of time within ten days.She declined to respond to our request or file a brief in this appeal, so the case was submitted with only D'Aquilla's brief.Her decision not to submit a brief "does not preclude our consideration of the merits" of D'Aquilla's appeal.Hager v. DBG Partners, Inc. , 903 F.3d 460, 464(5th Cir.2018).Cf.FED. R. APP. P. 31(c)(an appellee who does not file a brief forfeits the right to appear at oral argument).

We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.Jones v. United States , 625 F.3d 827, 829(5th Cir.2010).

II.

It is well established, and the parties do not dispute, that a victim has no standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring suit to demand the prosecution of his perpetrator.The Supreme Court so held in Linda R.S.410 U.S. at 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146.And courts, including ours, have consistently enforced this same principle.Whether framed as a lack of standing or a lack of any right to sue as a matter of substantive law, courts consistently reach the same judgment as in Linda R.S. —that plaintiffs may not file suit to secure the prosecution of another person.See , e.g. , Oliver v. Collins , 914 F.2d 56, 60(5th Cir.1990)(affirming dismissal of a prison inmate's claim against the sheriff for failing to press criminal charges against correctional officers involved in an alleged assault because the plaintiff"does not have a constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted").See also , e.g. , Del Marcelle v. Brown Cty. Corp. , 680 F.3d 887, 901(7th Cir.2012)(en banc)(Easterbrook, C.J., concurring)(the victim "needs to show how he was injured by what the defendants did to him, rather than by what they didn't do to other people");Parkhurst v. Tabor , 569 F.3d 861, 866(8th Cir.2009)("federal courts have maintained the distinction in standing between those prosecuted by the state and those who would urge the prosecution of others");Sattler v. Johnson , 857 F.2d 224, 227(4th Cir.1988)(rejecting claim that crime victims have "an enforceable right as a member of the public at large and as a victim to have the defendants criminally prosecuted").

Lefebure contends that this body of precedent should not bar her suit, because her asserted injury is not D'Aquilla's failure to prosecute but rather his failure to investigate Boeker.See , e.g. , Lefebure , 390 F. Supp. 3d at 745("[Lefebure] seeks relief for the failure to investigate her claims, for the alleged conspiracy with the Sheriff not to investigate her claims, and for the alleged long-standing practice, policies and procedures that fostered the failure to investigate").

We disagree.Her theory of the injury is the same: As in Linda R.S. , D'Aquilla deprived her of the opportunity to hold Boeker accountable through the criminal justice system.

In fact, Lefebure repeatedly emphasizes her desire to hold Boeker accountable throughout her complaint—and in particular, her desire to hold him accountable through the criminal justice system.SeeFirst Amended Complaint & Jury Demandat 2, 7, 16, 21–22, Lefebure v. Boeker , 390 F. Supp. 3d 729(M.D. La.2019)(ECF No. 37)(alleging that D'Aquilla and other officials conspired to ensure that Boeker "would not be held accountable for his actions," would be "protect[ed] ... from prosecution,""would not be convicted of the alleged rapes," would "walk free," and would be "protect[ed] ... from criminal liability").See alsoLefebure , 390 F. Supp. 3d at 745(acknowledging that "the alleged failure to investigate was motivated by a preference in the prosecutorial outcome").

We see no reason why the logic of Linda R.S. would not readily apply here.Linda R.S....