Rosebar v. Hogan
Civil Action No. 2017-0932
| D.D.C. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Michael and Erin Rosebar, defendants in an ongoing federal criminal case in D.D.C., filed a pro se civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens asserting numerous constitutional violations arising from the investigation, grand jury proceedings, indictment, asset forfeiture, pretrial detention, and trial-court rulings.
- Defendants named included Judge Thomas F. Hogan, prosecutors (U.S. Attorney’s Office and individual prosecutors), grand jurors, prior defense counsel, and a creditor (David Brooks); plaintiffs sought $50,400,000 in damages.
- Many claims challenged Judge Hogan’s judicial rulings (denial of dismissal, appointment of counsel, refusal to permit a particular purported advocate) and actions taken in his judicial capacity.
- The court concluded Judge Hogan is protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in his judicial role and dismissed him from the suit.
- For non-judicial defendants, the court found the claims premature or barred because the criminal proceedings had not been properly resolved and any damages claim that would imply an invalid conviction/sentence is unavailable unless the conviction/sentence is invalidated.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice; Milton Joseph Taylor was dismissed as a party because he is not an attorney and lacks standing to raise claims tied to the Rosebars’ criminal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Hogan can be sued for his courtroom rulings | Rosebar contends the judge’s rulings (denial of dismissal, appointment of counsel, etc.) violated their constitutional rights | Judicial acts are protected by absolute judicial immunity | Dismissed: Judge Hogan immune from suit under absolute judicial immunity (Mireles/Forrester) |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover damages now for alleged violations tied to ongoing criminal proceedings | Rosebar seeks money damages for alleged constitutional violations during investigation and trial | Claims premature and barred while conviction/sentence stands; damages that would imply invalidity of conviction require prior invalidation | Dismissed without prejudice under Heck doctrine and related precedents; damages not available until conviction/sentence invalidated |
| Whether non-attorneys (Milton J. Taylor) may represent parties or bring related claims | Plaintiffs sought Taylor’s participation/representation and relief based on his involvement | Taylor is not a licensed attorney and cannot represent others or assert personal injury from the criminal proceedings | Taylor dismissed; lacks authority to represent and lacks standing to assert claims tied to the criminal case |
| Whether the court should adjudicate constitutional challenges to ongoing criminal process instead of appeal in D.C. Circuit | Plaintiffs asked district court for relief regarding criminal proceedings | Federal appellate process (and post-conviction relief) is the appropriate route for challenges to criminal convictions/procedures | Court declined to adjudicate these civil claims now and directed such challenges to proper appellate/post-conviction mechanisms |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial acts within jurisdiction protected by absolute judicial immunity)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (limits on judicial immunity for nonjudicial actions)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (claims implying invalidity of conviction are not cognizable until conviction is invalidated)
- Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 1995) (Bivens claim barred where success would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Zolicoffer v. FBI, 884 F. Supp. 173 (M.D. Pa. 1995) (Bivens claims challenging conviction-related federal actions are not cognizable absent invalidation of conviction)