## Facts

- Alice Ingram called the City of Jennings, Missouri police department to report that her husband, Walter McClure, had abused her.
- While officers were on the way, Ingram called again and reported that there had been no incident.
- Police officers still went to the residence, entered the home, and arrested McClure.
- State criminal charges were filed against McClure even though Ingram asked that the case not be pursued.
- Ingram and McClure, proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple Jennings officials, including the mayor, the municipal prosecutor, the municipal judge, the police chief, and other police officials and officers, alleging that their constitutional rights were violated because Jennings followed a “no-drop” domestic-violence policy (proceeding with prosecution regardless of the victim’s wishes).
- The court reviewed the complaint at the outset under the in-forma-pauperis screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), before service or merits discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether a domestic-violence complainant or an accused person has a federal constitutional right to require that state or municipal officials drop, dismiss, or refrain from pursuing criminal charges.
2. Whether allegations that a city follows a domestic-violence “no-drop” prosecution policy, without identifying a specific constitutional deprivation, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether damages claims against a municipal judge and prosecutor are barred by absolute immunity for acts taken in their judicial and prosecutorial roles.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an official-capacity (municipal) claim by identifying an unconstitutional policy or custom that caused a violation of a federal right.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The court held that plaintiffs’ theory—challenging the decision to pursue domestic-violence charges despite Ingram’s request—did not identify a federally protected right that was violated.
- The court concluded that claims against the municipal judge and prosecutor were barred by absolute immunity for conduct connected to adjudicating and prosecuting the criminal case.
- To the extent plaintiffs sought to impose liability on the City of Jennings through official-capacity claims, the court found the pleading did not state a viable basis for municipal liability.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 plaintiff must allege (and ultimately prove) that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law; disagreement with a government charging choice, standing alone, is not enough.
- Private citizens generally have no federal constitutional right to control whether criminal charges are initiated, continued, or dismissed; charging decisions are committed to prosecutorial discretion absent some separate constitutional violation.
- Absolute judicial immunity bars damages claims against judges for acts performed in a judicial capacity and within jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff alleges error or unfairness.
- Absolute prosecutorial immunity bars damages claims against prosecutors for actions closely connected to the judicial phase of the criminal process, including decisions to file or maintain charges.
- Municipal (official-capacity) liability requires an unconstitutional policy or custom that causes a specific constitutional deprivation; alleging the existence of a “no-drop” policy does not state a claim unless the policy is tied to a violation of a federal right.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss an in-forma-pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim or seeks relief from immune defendants, even while construing pro se allegations liberally.

## Conclusion

McClure v. Rehg dismissed a pro se § 1983 suit brought by a domestic-violence complainant and the accused, who argued that Jennings officials violated their rights by continuing a prosecution under a no-drop policy after the complainant recanted and asked that charges be dropped; the court held there is no federal right to veto prosecution decisions and that immunity and pleading defects required dismissal at screening.


McClure v. Rehg, 2007 WL 3352389 (2007)