Lefebure v. D'Aquilla

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 5, 2021 · No. No. 19-30702 c/w No. 19-30989

Summary

The Fifth Circuit held that a crime victim lacks Article III standing to sue a prosecutor for failing to investigate or prosecute her assailant, because the causal connection between non-prosecution and the victim's injury is too speculative under *Linda R.S. v. Richard D.* The court distinguished failure-to-prosecute claims (no standing) from failure-to-protect claims (standing may exist), but found the plaintiff's allegations of a conspiracy to shield her rapist from prosecution constituted a failure-to-prosecute claim. The dissent argued that the plaintiff had standing under a failure-to-protect theory based on allegations of a discriminatory policy of underenforcing sexual assault laws against women. The case reinforces the principle that private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution of others, and that only the Supreme Court can overturn *Linda R.S.*

Holdings

  1. No. Under Linda R.S. v. Richard D., a citizen lacks standing to challenge the policies of the prosecuting authority when she herself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. The connection between non-prosecution and injury is too speculative to satisfy causation and redressability requirements. This rule applies even when the non-prosecution is allegedly based on a discriminatory policy, as the same was alleged in Linda R.S.
  2. The claim is a failure-to-prosecute claim, not a failure-to-protect claim. The plaintiff does not allege that the police refused to protect her before future assault; she alleges that prosecutors refused to investigate or prosecute after the assault took place.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a crime victim has standing under Article III to sue a prosecutor for failing to investigate or prosecute her assailant, particularly when the failure is alleged to be part of a discriminatory policy.
  2. Whether the claim is properly characterized as a failure-to-prosecute claim (barred by Linda R.S.) or a failure-to-protect claim (cognizable under Shipp v. McMahon).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (32)

  • Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973)(directly controlling)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)(foundational)
  • United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)(supporting)
  • Shipp v. McMahon, 234 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 2000)(distinguished)
  • Estate of Macias v. Ihde, 219 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2000)(distinguished)
  • Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2009)(supporting)
  • Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (Easterbrook, C.J., concurring)(supporting)
  • United States v. Grundhoefer, 916 F.2d 788 (2nd Cir. 1990)(supporting)
  • Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1988)(supporting)
  • Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1990)(supporting)

Showing top 10 of 32.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…