Prosecutorial Immunity

459 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Leroy W. Demery, M.D. v. Kupperman
  735 F.2d 1139· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The court's holding is that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials in their individual capacities for federal constitutional claims.
• Jacobson v. Rose
  592 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-29 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to seek actual damages, and that the award of statutory damages was properly joint and several. However, the court reversed and remanded regarding the good faith defense fo
• Clark Davenport Snell v. Conley Tunnell
  920 F.2d 673· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the non-attorney DHS employees were acting in an investigative capacity and thus not entitled to absolute immunity, and that the DHS attorney was not entitled to absolute immunity for seeking an order based on false information. The court also affirmed the den
• Marx v. Gumbinner
  855 F.2d 783· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity when the plaintiff also sought injunctive relief.
• Taylor v. Kavanagh
  640 F.2d 450· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 48×
  A prosecutor's actions in plea bargaining are protected by absolute immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and damages cannot be recovered for harm resulting from such conduct.
• Merrel J. Cline v. Brusett
  661 F.2d 108· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 47×
  The court held that most of the appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but two claims related to a second conviction were not. The court affirmed the dismissal of most claims and reversed the dismissal of two claims, remanding for further proceedings.
• Tarter v. Hury
  646 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of most claims, finding some barred by immunity and exhaustion requirements, and others failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Garcia v. Casey
  75 F.4th 1176· 11th Cir.· 2023-07-28 ·cited 46×
  Attorneys Megan Garcia and Victor Revill, representing a client under investigation for possessing child pornography, took their client's phone into their possession shortly before police executed a search warrant for it, and were subsequently arrested for obstructing governmenta
• Pfeil v. Rogers
  757 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, disregarding late-filed materials, and granting summary judgment based on the evidence presented. However, it erred in disallowing affidavits solely for lack of a notarial seal and in re
• Kunzelman v. Gervase Thompson
  799 F.2d 1172· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the defendants were not parties or privies to the prior state action, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that inmates lacked adequate access to the courts through the public defender system.
• W. v. Norton
  620 F.2d 1375· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 44×
  A private individual actively conspiring with an immune state official to deprive another of constitutional rights can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the state official is immune.
• Meyers v. Contra Costa Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  812 F.2d 1154· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 43×
• Powers v. COE
  728 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 42×
  A guilty plea does not moot a § 1983 claim for constitutional violations occurring prior to the plea, and prosecutorial immunity does not bar claims arising from press leaks or illegal wiretaps.
• Clulow v. State OF Okla.
  700 F.2d 1291· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, affirming the dismissal of Counts One through Four as time-barred and Count Five for lack of jurisdiction and immunity, and Count Six for failure to state a claim.
• Grow v. Fisher
  523 F.2d 875· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-09 ·cited 42×
  A prosecutor is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken within the scope of his prosecutorial discretion, and private citizens acting in concert with an immune prosecutor are not acting under color of state law unless they have control over the prosecution.
• Lame v. United States Dep't of Just.
  654 F.2d 917· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that subsequent disclosures of information originally given in confidence do not render that information non-confidential under FOIA, and that detailed document-by-document review is not always necessary for in camera examinations.
• Stift v. Lynch
  267 F.2d 237· 7th Cir.· 1959-05-11 ·cited 40×
  The court held that judicial officers, including justices of the peace, and prosecuting officials are immune from civil liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act for actions taken in their official capacities.
• Barrett v. United States
  798 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 39×
  The court held that state Assistant Attorney General Marcus was entitled to absolute immunity for his actions in defending a state lawsuit, but federal attorneys were not entitled to absolute immunity for their efforts to conceal federal involvement in the underlying events.
• Mueller v. THE Florida BAR
  390 So. 2d 449· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-11-19 ·cited 38×
  Paul Mueller, disbarred from practicing law by the Florida Supreme Court, sued The Florida Bar and its assistant staff counsel Paul Gross for defamation and malicious prosecution based on media publications announcing his disbarment and the disciplinary proceedings. The court hel
• LEE v. Joseph "Scooter Joe" Willins
  617 F.2d 320· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 38×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil liability for actions taken in initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case, even if those actions involve alleged misconduct like coercing testimony or planting evidence, if the resulting harm is directly tied to the prose
• Waits v. Hon. Raymond McGOWAN
  516 F.2d 203· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 38×
  State judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and their investigators are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) when acting within the scope of their official duties.
• Gobel v. Maricopa Cnty.
  867 F.2d 1201· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 37×
  Prosecutors are not absolutely immune for investigative actions or public statements unrelated to the judicial phase of a prosecution, and a county can be liable under § 1983 if its elected officials act as policymakers.
• Schlegel v. Bebout
  841 F.2d 937· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-08 ·cited 36×
  The dissent argues that state Public Utilities Commission members should be afforded absolute prosecutorial immunity, not qualified immunity, for their actions related to audits and cease and desist letters.
• Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Senn
  738 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the plaintiffs' conspiracy theory, requiring a new trial. It also held that the individual plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed and that Darla Senn's actions, while potentially constituting comm
• Noe Villanueva v. McINNIS
  723 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 36×
  A conspiracy to deprive a person of a constitutional right, without an actual deprivation, is insufficient to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Lerwill v. Joslin
  712 F.2d 435· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 36×
  A prosecutor is absolutely immune from a section 1983 suit for damages when initiating a prosecution under statutes he is not authorized to invoke, provided he was arguably empowered to prosecute the conduct and the invoked statute arguably applies to the conduct.
• White v. Walsh
  649 F.2d 560· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint, alleging a conspiracy to impanel an all-white jury over his objections, was sufficiently specific to withstand a motion to dismiss under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Williams v. Rhoden
  629 F.2d 1099· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a prisoner's Section 1983 complaint without service of process and in applying the wrong statute of limitations to the conspiracy claim.
• C. R. "Jake" Cook v. The Houston Post
  616 F.2d 791· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-07 ·cited 36×
  A prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for acts within the scope of his duties, and private individuals conspiring with immune state officials are not automatically liable under § 1983 if no constitutional right was deprived.
• Helstoski v. Goldstein
  552 F.2d 564· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint before any evidence was adduced, as allegations of deliberate leaks by prosecutors may fall outside the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
• French v. Corrigan
  432 F.2d 1211· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that state's attorneys are immune from suit under the Civil Rights Act, and appointed counsel do not act under 'color of law' when representing a client in their private capacity.
• Taylor v. Nichols
  558 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 35×
  A special prosecutor is entitled to the same absolute immunity as a state prosecutor, and county commissioners are entitled to qualified immunity if they act in good faith and within their discretion.
• Joseph v. Patterson
  795 F.2d 549· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 34×
  Prosecutors are not absolutely immune for investigative or administrative acts, but are immune for actions directly related to initiating and presenting a criminal case. Investigators generally have qualified immunity.
• Carlisle W. Briscoe v. Sgt. Martin LaHUE
  663 F.2d 713· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-27 ·cited 34×
  Witnesses are absolutely immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for testimony given in judicial proceedings, and prosecutors and judges are also absolutely immune for acts within their official capacities.
• Morton L. Simons and Barbara M. Simons v. Bellinger
  643 F.2d 774· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 34×
  Members of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in investigating and prosecuting alleged violations of the rules governing the practice of law.
• Wilhelm v. Turner
  431 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Attorney General and his agents were immune from civil damages claims because they acted with probable cause and in good faith, and that the return of seized materials was proper due to the lack of a prior adversary determination of obscenity.
• Peckham v. Scanlon
  241 F.2d 761· 7th Cir.· 1957-02-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff, who was pro se and incarcerated, was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right before a responsive pleading was filed, and the dismissal for want of prosecution was erroneous.
• Slyvester Harris v. Harvey
  605 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-20 ·cited 33×
  A judge's extrajudicial acts, motivated by racial animus and performed under color of law, are not protected by judicial or prosecutorial immunity and can form the basis of an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Pugh v. Parish OF ST. Tammany
  875 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not automatically frivolous for failing to state a claim, but this complaint was still properly dismissed as frivolous due to prosecutorial immunity and lack of arguable basis in law or fact.
• Hand v. Gary
  838 F.2d 1420· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's actions were the legal cause of any constitutional deprivation, despite the jury finding liability for malicious prosecution and false arrest.
• McCARTHY v. Mayo
  827 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 32×
  The district court abused its discretion by reaching the merits of thirteen pendent state claims that were neither briefed nor argued by the parties.
• Cabell v. Petty
  810 F.2d 463· 4th Cir.· 1987-02-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' attorney did not violate Rule 11 by filing the complaint.
• Barr v. Abrams
  810 F.2d 358· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 32×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil rights liability for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, unless they proceed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction; otherwise, qualified immunity applies. Investigators are protected by qua
• Malachowski v. City OF Keene
  787 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief related to pending state juvenile delinquency proceedings and that various appellees were immune from damages claims or failed to state a claim under § 1983.
• Crane v. State OF Tex.
  766 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 32×
  A Texas district attorney is considered a county official for purposes of policy responsibility, making the county liable for constitutional violations stemming from the DA's policies. The county cannot evade responsibility through such arrangements.
• Coleman v. Turpen
  697 F.2d 1341· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a plaintiff stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process, and that a prosecutor had qualified immunity for actions related to the sale of seized property, not just prosecutorial duties.
• Spaulding v. Nielsen
  599 F.2d 728· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 32×
  Federal probation officers are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their alleged misconduct in investigating and preparing a presentence report.
• Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau
  600 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the investigation used routine undercover techniques and there was insufficient evidence of personal fault or improper motive by the defendants.
• Economou v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  535 F.2d 688· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-23 ·cited 32×
  Federal agencies are immune from suit if jurisdiction is lacking, but individual executive branch officials are entitled to qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for acts within the scope of their duties.
• Madison v. Gerstein
  440 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the State Attorney is immune from suit for acts within his official capacity, and the Director of Public Safety is not vicariously liable for a deputy's acts he did not direct or know about, as his office differs from a traditional sheriff.