116 F. Supp. 3d 58
D. Conn.2015Background
- Harold Turner, a New Jersey resident and pro se internet radio host, posted on June 2, 2009 comments encouraging violence and publishing private addresses of Connecticut officials; Connecticut authorities arrested and prosecuted him; he was acquitted in September 2011.
- Turner sued eight Connecticut state employees in New Jersey federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and Connecticut common law (malicious prosecution, tortious interference), seeking monetary damages; the case was transferred to D. Conn. and assigned to Judge Underhill.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on grounds including sovereign immunity, absolute prosecutorial and judicial immunity, qualified immunity, lack of standing for a private § 242 claim, and statutes of limitations.
- The court found Connecticut sovereign immunity barred official-capacity monetary claims and dismissed state-law tort claims for lack of Claims Commissioner review or as time-barred.
- The court held absolute immunity barred individual-capacity claims against prosecutors and for judicial acts; qualified immunity and statute-of-limitations rules disposed of remaining individual-capacity claims, except that Turner’s § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim (post-acquittal) was timely in theory but was dismissed on merits/ immunity grounds as explained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity for official-capacity monetary claims | Turner sought money damages from state officials in their official capacities for alleged § 1983/§ 1985 violations | Connecticut hasn’t waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for monetary damages under §§ 1983/1985 | Dismissed: official-capacity monetary claims barred by sovereign immunity |
| Absolute immunity for prosecutorial/judicial acts | Prosecutors/judges acted maliciously or conspiratorially and thus are not immune | Prosecutors are absolutely immune for advocacy functions; judges have absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts | Dismissed: claims against prosecutors and claims imputing judges’ acts dismissed with prejudice under absolute immunity |
| Accrual/statute of limitations for constitutional torts | Many claims accrued only after events and thus were timely | Defendants: claims accrued in June 2009; three-year limitations expired before suit (filed Nov 2012) | Dismissed: First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment claims were time-barred where accrual occurred in June 2009; malicious prosecution accrual post-acquittal was timely but failed on other grounds |
| Qualified immunity / pleading sufficiency for malicious prosecution and related claims | Turner alleges defendants fabricated or maliciously pursued charges and conspired to deprive his rights | Defendants: objective reasonableness, lack of factual allegations showing lack of probable cause or causal chain, and immunity doctrines | Dismissed: pleaded facts insufficient to overcome qualified immunity or show lack of probable cause; complaining-witness and police witnesses entitled to qualified immunity; remaining individual claims dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocacy functions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity; distinguishes investigative acts)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity for complaining witnesses/officials unless conduct objectively unreasonable)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable termination rule for § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual rules for false arrest/imprisonment claims: claim accrues when detained pursuant to legal process)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework and discretion in sequence of analysis)