969 F.3d 238
5th Cir.2020Background:
- Dr. Courtney Morgan operated two clinics that did not dispense controlled substances; on July 18, 2013 TMB investigator Mary Chapman, DPS agent John Kopacz, DEA agents, and local police served "instanter" administrative subpoenas, searched the clinics, and seized patient records and other documents.
- Morgan alleges Chapman fabricated an investigative report (inflating prescription percentages) based on the seized records; Kopacz delivered the report to the district attorney, and a grand jury indicted Morgan for operating an uncertified pain-management clinic.
- At a state suppression hearing the court found the searches were warrantless and pretextual, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the indictment; Chapman’s testimony was deemed not credible and showed coordination with Kopacz to pursue criminal charges.
- Morgan sued Chapman and Kopacz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting malicious prosecution (against both), abuse of process (against Chapman), and a Fourth Amendment claim in his amended pleadings; the district court denied qualified immunity and rejected Chapman’s claim of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
- The Fifth Circuit held Chapman is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, but concluded malicious prosecution and abuse of process are not standalone constitutional claims under § 1983 and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on those counts.
- The court remanded for the district court to decide whether Morgan waived any Fourth Amendment or due process claims and whether he should be permitted to amend to add claims for unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, or fabrication-of-evidence due-process violations.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute prosecutorial immunity for Chapman | Chapman acted as an advocate and should be absolutely immune for her role in prosecution | Chapman was an investigator performing fact-finding and thus not entitled to absolute immunity | Chapman acted investigatively when executing the search and compiling the report; no absolute immunity (qualified immunity only) |
| Malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 | Morgan alleges constitutional malicious prosecution based on fabricated report and induced indictment | Defendants say malicious prosecution is a state tort, not a constitutional right; qualified immunity applies | Malicious prosecution is not a freestanding constitutional right; claim barred as § 1983 constitutional theory; qualified immunity applies |
| Abuse of process under § 1983 | Morgan asserts abuse of process based on Chapman’s alleged ulterior purpose and misuse of process | Defendants contend abuse of process is a state tort and not a constitutional violation | No constitutional right to be free from abuse of process; labeling it constitutional is improper; qualified immunity applies |
| Leave to amend / viability of Fourth Amendment and due-process claims | Morgan argued the substance matters more than labels and sought leave to add Fourth Amendment and due-process theories | Defendants asserted Morgan waived or forfeited Fourth Amendment/due-process claims and some claims may be time-barred or futile | Court remanded for district court to resolve waiver, futility, and whether Morgan may amend to add unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, or fabricated-evidence due-process claims (not futile on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (administrative-subpoena/warrant substitute framework)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (distinction between investigative and advocacy functions for immunity)
- Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (en banc) (§ 1983 claims must be rooted in constitutional text; rejected constitutional malicious-prosecution theory)
- Zadeh v. Robinson, 928 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2019) (TMB instanter subpoenas and Fourth Amendment analysis; qualified immunity discussion)
- Cotropia v. Chapman, [citation="721 F. App'x 354"] (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (instanter subpoena seizure of medical records; denial of qualified immunity at pleading stage)
- Cole v. Carson, 802 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2015) (recognizing due-process claim for fabricated evidence used to frame defendant)
- Winfrey v. Rogers, 901 F.3d 483 (4th Amendment seizure claim where arrest based on knowing/reckless misstatements)
- Beck v. Tex. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2000) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity)
- Beker Phosphate Corp. v. Muirhead, 581 F.2d 1187 (5th Cir. 1978) (misuse of legal process may implicate § 1983 only where a constitutional deprivation is present)