15 F.4th 650
5th Cir.2021Background
- Priscilla Lefebure alleges she was raped and sexually assaulted multiple times by Barrett Boeker, an assistant prison warden; Boeker was arrested but never indicted.
- Lefebure's complaint alleges Boeker conspired with West Feliciana officials and District Attorney Samuel D’Aquilla (and others) to shield him from investigation and prosecution.
- She sued D’Aquilla (and others) under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and related Louisiana constitutional claims, seeking damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- The district court denied dismissal for lack of Article III standing as to D’Aquilla; the order was certified for interlocutory appeal and this Court granted review.
- The Fifth Circuit majority held Supreme Court precedent (Linda R.S.) bars a crime victim from suing a prosecutor for failing to investigate or prosecute another person and reversed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to D’Aquilla; the court denied rehearing en banc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lefebure has Article III standing to sue a prosecutor for failing to investigate/prosecute her assailant | Lefebure: she suffered a concrete injury traceable to D’Aquilla’s alleged conduct and a court order could redress it | D’Aquilla: Linda R.S. bars standing for a private citizen to challenge nonprosecution of another; causation and redressability are too speculative | Held: No standing under Linda R.S.; dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether an asserted discriminatory non‑prosecution policy (Equal Protection theory) overcomes Linda R.S. | Lefebure: the DA’s alleged pattern of underenforcement against women creates an actionable equal‑protection injury and is distinguishable from Linda R.S. | D’Aquilla: Linda R.S. forecloses such suits even when alleging discriminatory nonprosecution | Held: Alleged discriminatory nonprosecution does not distinguish Linda R.S.; standing still lacking |
| Whether a "failure‑to‑protect" theory (underenforcement causing victimization) gives standing distinct from a "failure‑to‑prosecute" theory | Lefebure: her pleadings allege a policy/custom that reduced protection and contributed to her assault (failure‑to‑protect) | D’Aquilla: the complaint is essentially a challenge to nonprosecution, which Linda R.S. forbids | Held: Court emphasizes the failure‑to‑protect / failure‑to‑prosecute distinction but concludes Linda R.S. controls for the claims against the prosecutor; majority dismisses; dissent argues failure‑to‑protect claim should survive |
| Whether prior circuit decisions (e.g., Shipp, Estate of Macias) support plaintiff’s standing | Lefebure: cites Fifth and Ninth Circuit precedents recognizing failure‑to‑protect equal‑protection claims | D’Aquilla: those opinions either address police protection (not prosecutorial inaction) or do not analyze standing and thus do not override Supreme Court precedent | Held: Prior circuit cases do not overturn Linda R.S.; decisions that did not address standing are not precedential on that point |
Key Cases Cited
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen lacks standing to challenge nonprosecution of another)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Executive has exclusive authority and discretion to prosecute)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity for conduct intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (Monell/municipal liability framework and proof requirements against prosecutors’ offices)
- Shipp v. McMahon, 234 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 2000) (recognizing equal‑protection failure‑to‑protect claims based on discriminatory underenforcement of domestic violence laws)
- Estate of Macias v. Ihde, 219 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure‑to‑protect precedent where police inaction contributed to victim’s death)
- Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing failure‑to‑protect claims from failure‑to‑prosecute and reinforcing Linda R.S.)