## Facts

- Ethel L. Pusey’s son died, and Eric Bator was charged in Youngstown Municipal Court with involuntary manslaughter under Ohio law.
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.081 required the assigned prosecutor to notify the victim or next of kin of the time and place of trial or, if resolved without trial, the time and place of a guilty plea or other final disposition.
- At a September 27, 1991 status conference, assistant city prosecutor Maureen Cronin entered a nolle prosequi on the involuntary manslaughter charge, substituted a negligent homicide charge, and Bator pleaded no contest; sentencing was set for a later date.
- Pusey was not present at the September 27 proceeding and alleged she and her counsel were not properly notified that the charge would be reduced and a plea taken.
- Cronin asserted she advised Pusey and her attorney before September 27 that a status conference would occur and that charges might be reduced.
- Pusey sued Cronin (personal and official capacities) and the City of Youngstown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of First Amendment speech rights and denial of access to the courts based on noncompliance with the state victim-notification statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 2937.081 created a federally protected liberty or property interest enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether lack of notice and opportunity to attend or speak at the plea proceeding violated Pusey’s First Amendment rights.
3. Whether the handling of the plea and charge reduction violated Pusey’s constitutional right of access to the courts.
4. Whether the City of Youngstown could be liable under § 1983 absent an underlying constitutional violation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Cronin and the City of Youngstown.
- The court held that Ohio’s victim-notification statute did not create a substantive federal right; at most it imposed state-law procedural duties.
- The court rejected the First Amendment claim because the Constitution does not require the state to provide a forum or procedural opportunity for a nonparty to speak in a criminal prosecution.
- The court rejected the access-to-courts claim because Pusey was not hindered from bringing her own legal claims; lack of notice in another person’s criminal case is not a denial of court access.
- Because no federal right was violated, municipal liability could not attach to the City.

## Legal Principles

- A violation of a state procedural statute, without more, does not establish a deprivation of a federal due process right actionable under § 1983.
- State-law victim-notification provisions generally do not create federally protected liberty or property interests for victims or their families in prosecutorial charging or plea decisions.
- The First Amendment limits government suppression of speech but does not impose an affirmative duty to provide notice, a platform, or an audience to nonparties in criminal proceedings.
- The constitutional right of access to the courts protects the ability to pursue one’s own legal claims, not the ability to participate in or influence someone else’s prosecution.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires an underlying constitutional violation by a municipal actor.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a prosecutor’s alleged failure to provide state-law victim notice and the resulting lack of victim participation in a plea proceeding did not violate the federal Constitution and did not support § 1983 liability against either the prosecutor or the municipality.


Pusey v. City of Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 1993)