Rick Lovelien v. United States
19-5325
| D.C. Cir. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- In 2014 a federal standoff arose when the BLM attempted to seize Bundy family cattle; appellants Lovelien and Stewart attended and allege federal excessive force and subsequent retaliatory arrests, detention, and prosecution.
- A grand jury later indicted them; first trial (Feb 2017) ended in mistrial, a retrial resulted in acquittal after three days of jury deliberation.
- In 2019 appellants sued: a Bivens claim (retaliatory arrest/incarceration/prosecution), multiple §1983 claims (excessive force and retaliation), and FTCA claims (malicious prosecution under Nevada law).
- The District Court dismissed the complaint in full for multiple reasons: sovereign immunity for federal agencies/officials in official capacity, statute of limitations bar for 2014-standoff claims, §1983 inapplicability (federal actors not acting under color of state law), absolute prosecutorial immunity for Attorney General defendants, implausibility/lack of personal involvement for high-level officials and Officer Love, and FTCA inapplicability for constitutional torts.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissals in a per curiam judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Attorney General defendants are immune from malicious prosecution claims | AGs directed or caused malicious prosecution; liable for decisions to prosecute | AGs are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for charging/prosecution decisions | Absolute immunity applies; malicious prosecution claims against AGs dismissed |
| Whether §1983 and Bivens claims based on 2014 standoff are timely | Claims stem from 2014 excessive force and related acts; suit timely under federal law | D.C. statute of limitations (3 years) governs; suit filed in 2019 is late | Claims arising from the 2014 standoff are time-barred under D.C. law |
| Whether §1983 can reach federal officials who allegedly directed state officers | Defendants acted through and controlled state officers, so acted under color of state law | Federal officials acting under federal authority are not state actors for §1983 | §1983 claims against federal officials fail because defendants acted under federal, not state, law |
| Whether Bivens and §1983 allegations plausibly plead personal involvement of high‑ranking officials and Officer Love | National attention and supervisory positions suffice to infer involvement; boilerplate allegations adequate | Complaint contains only threadbare, conclusory assertions lacking specific factual links | Pleading is implausible under Iqbal/Twombly; dismissal for failure to allege personal involvement warranted |
| Whether FTCA malicious prosecution claim survives | FTCA claim alleges malicious prosecution based on the prosecution and constitutional harms | FTCA does not authorize recovery for constitutional torts; plaintiffs did not plead a cognizable state-law malicious-prosecution claim; they also forfeited amendment | FTCA claim dismissed: constitutional tort not cognizable under FTCA; amendment request forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; threadbare legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Dellums v. Powell, 660 F.2d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for decisions to prosecute)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (absolute prosecutorial immunity does not cover investigative functions)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (constitutional torts are not cognizable under the FTCA)
- Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (use local statute of limitations for §1983 claims)
- Loumiet v. United States, 828 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Bivens claims borrow forum statute of limitations)
- Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (§1983 cannot be used against federal officials acting under federal law)
- IMAPizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., 965 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (standard of review for dismissal de novo)
- Valambhia v. United Republic of Tanzania, 964 F.3d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (pleading and inference standards on dismissal)
- Bundy v. Sessions, [citation="812 F. App'x 1"] (D.C. Cir. 2020) (similar pleading deficiencies regarding high‑level official involvement)
- City of Harper Woods Emps.' Retirement Sys. v. Olver, 589 F.3d 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (forfeiture of right to amend where leave not sought below)