Louis Bianchi v. Thomas McQueen
818 F.3d 309
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Louis Bianchi, McHenry County State’s Attorney, was investigated after a former secretary stole office documents and gave them to the media and Bianchi’s political opponent; several special prosecutors and private investigators were appointed to investigate.
- Judge Graham appointed Henry Tonigan as special prosecutor and Thomas McQueen as assistant special prosecutor; McQueen and private firm Quest Consultants conducted much of the investigation and presented evidence to a grand jury.
- Bianchi and three colleagues were indicted based on evidence the plaintiffs allege was fabricated or withheld; all defendants were acquitted at bench trials in 2011.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due-process (fabrication/Brady), Fourth Amendment (false arrest), and First Amendment (political retaliation) violations, plus state claims; Tonigan settled, leaving McQueen and Quest defendants.
- District court dismissed federal claims on absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity grounds and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McQueen was a prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity | McQueen was a private lawyer merely assisting the court-appointed special prosecutor and thus not a protected prosecutor | McQueen was appointed under 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3-9008 and functioned as a special prosecutor | McQueen was a special prosecutor under the statute and Illinois orders; absolute immunity applies to prosecutorial acts |
| Scope of absolute immunity for alleged fabrication and investigatory acts | Fabrication occurred during investigation before grand jury, so not protected by absolute immunity | Conduct in preparing and presenting evidence to grand jury/trial is prosecutorial and protected; only pre-prosecutorial investigative acts might lack absolute immunity | Absolute immunity covers actions tied to prosecutorial advocacy (presentation to grand jury/trial); some pre-grand-jury investigatory conduct is not absolutely immune but remains subject to qualified immunity |
| Due process claims for evidence fabrication and Brady violations | Fabrication and suppression of exculpatory evidence violated due process/Brady | No deprivation of liberty or prejudice occurred because plaintiffs were released on bond and later acquitted; qualified immunity applies | Due-process fabrication and Brady claims fail because acquittal/absence of deprivation preclude prejudice; qualified immunity bars recovery (and absolute immunity bars some Brady claims against McQueen) |
| First Amendment political-retaliation claim | Prosecution was motivated by political animus against Bianchi for holding office | Plaintiffs failed to plead plausible retaliatory animus or a but-for causal connection between motive and prosecution | Dismissed: complaint does not plausibly allege retaliatory animus or causation; claim fails |
| Fourth Amendment / false arrest claim | Fabricated evidence led to arrests without probable cause in violation of Fourth Amendment | Arrests followed indictments and warrants (formal process); claim is really malicious prosecution and is not clearly cognizable under Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity applies | Labeled a malicious-prosecution claim (not false arrest); under existing Seventh Circuit law and Wallace, qualified immunity applies and no Fourth Amendment injury was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for actions within prosecutorial function)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity; distinction between advocacy and investigation)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2009) (scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity in § 1983 suits)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (standard for qualified immunity)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishing false-arrest claims from malicious prosecution once legal process begins)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012) (evidence-fabrication due-process doctrine and qualified-immunity analysis)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2014) (prosecutorial investigative acts treated under qualified immunity)
- Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2015) (acquittal/release on bond forecloses evidence-fabrication due-process claim)
- Alexander v. McKinney, 692 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2012) (acquittal forecloses fabrication-based due-process claim)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation claims require but-for causation between retaliatory motive and prosecution)