42 U.S.C. § 1983

Prosecutors are not absolutely immune from § 1983 claims based on investigatory or administrative conduct.

Reid v. The City of New York · filed 2021-09-07

Further, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that the DANY Defendants’ actions were investigatory and administrative in nature and thus not shielded by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a prosecutor for deciding to bring charges and prosecuting a criminal case.

Berger, Tony v. Wood County Sheriffs Dept · filed 2021-09-09

Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that he seeks to hold the ADA and the DA’s office liable for deciding to pursue charges and then prosecuting the criminal case against him, which he cannot do under § 1983.

A prosecutor has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim based solely on initiating a prosecution and presenting the state’s case.

Romero v. Tobyhanna Township, PA · filed 2021-09-13

Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim against ADA Rakaczewski is based solely on his conduct as an advocate in the judicial phase of the criminal process—that is, initiating a prosecution and presenting the state’s case—and thus the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is indeed barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for acts arising from their official functions.

CARMONA v. UNION COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY · filed 2021-09-20

Moreover, prosecutors are entitled to absolutely immunity from Section 1983 liability for acts arising out of the exercise of their official functions. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976).

A prosecutor has absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for declining to interview alibi witnesses while deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution.

BAYNARD v. MONA · filed 2021-09-30

Accordingly, Mona is absolutely immune from suit for claims premised on her decision not to investigate the alibi witnesses.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for acts within their prosecutorial duties, but that immunity does not extend to investigative acts.

Walker v. State of Mississippi · filed 2021-10-06

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from suit for actions performed within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. ... Absolute immunity does not extend to a prosecutor’s acts that are investigatory. ... Walker’s speculative accusations, if true, do not show that McIlrath or Lovorn acted outside the scope of their prosecutorial duties or that either of them acted as an investigator with respect to the bond revocation proceedings.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for actions taken in their role as advocates.

Krenz v. Jackson · filed 2021-10-07

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983. ... Thus, absent clearer allegations supporting a reasonable inference that Defendant Jackson was not acting in his role as an advocate when performing these actions, prosecutorial immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim against Jackson.

Prosecutorial immunity can bar Section 1983 claims against a district attorney and an assistant district attorney.

Lesane v. Doe 1 · filed 2021-10-07

In the July 26, 2021 Order of Dismissal, Chief Judge Swain dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the Bronx District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, and the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) and the City of New York for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. #6). The Order also dismissed Plaintiff’s false arrest claims as time-barred. (Id.). To the extent the amended complaint seeks to reassert these claims, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s false arrest claims and his claims against the Bronx District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, and the Commissioner of the NYPD for the reasons stated in Chief Judge Swain’s July 26, 2021 Order.

Prosecutorial immunity bars § 1983 claims based on prosecutors’ plea negotiations and their resolution of a habeas case.

Waliezer v. Doe · filed 2021-10-07

Plaintiff's claims against defendants Elshire and McMann are barred by prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for withholding evidence in connection with a criminal prosecution.

DeGraff v. Martinez · filed 2021-10-18

Under this precedent, Martinez is absolutely immune from suit for his alleged withholding of evidence.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on prosecutors for claims arising from their prosecutorial work in grand jury proceedings.

Barnette v. Cantalamessa · filed 2021-10-29

These claims concern typical prosecutorial functions for which both prosecutors are immune.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity for decisions to charge and negotiate a plea agreement.

Yananta Isi Chito Lusa v. Indiana Department of Child Se · filed 2021-11-05

But the prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit because her decisions to charge and negotiate a plea agreement fall within her immunized prosecutorial duties.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against judges for judicial acts or damages claims against prosecutors for their work in initiating and presenting a prosecution.

Garcia v. Richison · filed 2021-11-15

Mr. Garcia can’t sue the defendants he has named in his complaint Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because the doctrine of judicial immunity applies, Mr. Garcia can’t proceed on his claim against Judge Smith. ... Because the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity applies, Mr. Garcia can’t proceed against these three defendants.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a prosecutor for filing and serving a habeas response while acting as the state’s advocate, even if the response was allegedly late, inaccurate, or improperly motivated.

Weir v. Napiorski · filed 2021-11-16

Weir’s claim is based on Napiorski’s filing of a response to a habeas petition and thus falls within the scope of prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages in Section 1983 actions for initiating a prosecution and presenting the State’s case.

Allen v. State of Kansas · filed 2021-11-16

In addition, Plaintiff’s claims against the county prosecutors fail on the ground of prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for damages in actions asserted against them for actions taken “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.”

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for advocacy in court, including arguments at a motion hearing.

Hastings v. City Fort Myers · filed 2021-11-17

Thus, she is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages.

Section 1983 prosecutorial immunity does not cover a prosecutor’s legal advice to law enforcement.

Mahon v. Madisonville Town · filed 2021-11-17

As for Danner’s purported prosecutorial immunity, it does not apply to his giving legal advice to Tyrney, as prosecutorial immunity does not cover giving legal advice to law enforcement.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity to a prosecutor acting as an advocate in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution.

Peroli v. Huber · filed 2021-11-19

The Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) held that a prosecutor has immunity from civil suit under § 1983 when “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” ... These allegations show that Huber was functioning as an advocate rather than an administrator or investigator. ... Based on the pleadings, Huber is entitled to absolute immunity on the federal claims.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges for judicial acts and prosecutors for prosecutorial acts are barred by absolute immunity.

Neptune v. Carey · filed 2021-12-01

The District Court properly held that Neptune’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the claims against Judge Silva ... and Carey were barred by immunity.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct is part of their role as advocates in a criminal prosecution.

Blakemore v. City of St. Louis · filed 2021-12-01

Prosecutors are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability so long as the actions complained of appear to be within the scope of prosecutorial duties. ... Based on the allegations in the complaint, Prosecutor Griffith has absolute immunity, as there is no indication that Prosecutor Griffith acted as anything other than an advocate for the State of Missouri.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct arises from their role in prosecuting a criminal case.

Tarrant v. City of Mount Vernon · filed 2021-12-01

Because the DA Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity, the claims for relief against them are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a prosecutor for initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution because the prosecutor has absolute immunity.

Wright v. Wallace · filed 2021-12-01

Specifically, Plaintiff appears to assert that the Defendants Crump and Wallace are liable under § 1983 for his current incarceration based on an indictment because the evidence does not support his charges. However, Defendant Attorney General Crump is a prosecutor and therefore absolutely immune from suit for his initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a prosecutor for actions taken in the prosecutor’s role as an advocate for the state.

Gregory v. District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii · filed 2021-12-03

Absolute prosecutorial immunity immunizes a prosecutor from damages liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in his or her role as a prosecutor.

Prosecutors are immune from Section 1983 damages claims for advocating a higher bail during the judicial phase of a prosecution.

Wooley v. Cervantes · filed 2021-12-09

Although it is not clear that either attorney played a role in setting his bail, advocating for a higher bail would be “intimately associated” with the judicial phase of the prosecution against Wooley. Thus, both Defendants are immune from civil suit and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions taken in post-conviction proceedings and on appeal.

Robinson Jr. v. Frosh · filed 2021-12-14

Similarly, Attorney General Frosh enjoys absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions alleged to have been taken in post-conviction proceedings and on appeal.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their pursuit of a sentencing enhancement as part of the judicial process.

Mockbee v. Lee · filed 2021-12-15

The prosecutors were performing their duties in the judicial process when they sought the enhancement, so they are shielded by absolute immunity.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages under Section 1983 for conduct associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case; allegations of investigative conduct must be supported by facts to avoid dismissal on that ground.

York v. Sarabia · filed 2021-12-21

Typically, whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity or qualified immunity is something that cannot be determined on the basis of the pleadings alone; however, even granting all reasonable inferences to York, with the scant facts alleged in the Complaint the Court can only arrive at one conclusion: the Complaint, as pled, fails to permit the inference ASA LaRue was not acting within the scope of his prosecutorial duties such that ASA LaRue would not be entitled to absolute immunity from York’s Section 1983 claims.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits based on prosecutorial functions, including presenting the state's case and deciding whether to file or dismiss charges.

Turlington v. Connor · filed 2021-12-21

Therefore, the Court finds that defendants Wright and Lelecas are entitled to absolute immunity from suit on the § 1983 claims, and plaintiff’s § 1983 claims (counts 1-5) against Wright (defendant 9) and Lelecas (defendant 11) should be dismissed.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for conduct within their role as advocates for the state.

Morris v. Dicus · filed 2021-12-22

All this conduct involves prosecutorial functions that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and fall within the scope of advocacy on behalf of the State. The defendants are therefore absolutely immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct is part of their role as advocates in a criminal prosecution.

Jackson v. Wiggins · filed 2021-12-27

However, a prosecuting attorney acting in her role as an advocate, i.e., initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and presenting the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s case, enjoys absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on prosecutors for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case, including initiating a prosecution.

HENDERSON v. EVANCHICKI · filed 2021-12-29

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 for acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” such as “initiating a prosecution and . . . presenting the State’s case.” ... Because Mr. Henderson’s claims against Mr. Steele appear to be based upon Mr. Steele’s actions as a Commonwealth prosecutor in bringing criminal charges against Mr. Henderson, Mr. Steele is entitled to absolute immunity and the claims against him will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gii).

A prosecutor has no absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for investigative conduct used to obtain a search warrant.

MacMaster v. Busacca · filed 2021-12-31

At its core, the conduct as alleged is investigative and would not fall under Kolodziej's absolute immunity as a prosecutor.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a prosecutor for advocacy associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case, including seeking higher bail.

LaFaive v. City of Waukesha · filed 2022-01-03

“Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983 for conduct that is functionally prosecutorial; this immunity is understood to broadly cover all conduct associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Bianchi v. McQueen, 818 F.3d 309, 316 (7th Cir. 2016). Because advocating for a higher bail was associated with the judicial phase of the prosecution against LaFaive, Nicholie is immune from civil suit on that basis.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on their acts in prosecuting a criminal case.

WOLTER v. LOVETT · filed 2022-01-03

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Tracey Anne Agnew and James Michael Donnelly for selective prosecution and malicious prosecution must also be dismissed because the Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against prosecutors and judges are barred by prosecutorial and judicial immunity for conduct within their protected roles.

Bishop v. Genesee, County of · filed 2022-01-07

Any claims against those individuals, however, are barred by prosecutorial and judicial immunity.

Section 1983 gives prosecutors absolute immunity for charging decisions and other acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case.

EASTON v. PENCHISHEN · filed 2022-01-18

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 for acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” such as “initiating a prosecution and . . . presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). ... Because the claim against ADA Bernier is based upon her actions in charging Easton with crimes and refusing to drop those charges, all of which are acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, Bernier is absolutely immune.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity for acts undertaken as advocates in preparing to initiate judicial proceedings or for trial.

Rambert v. District Attorney Philadelphia · filed 2022-01-24

Rambert also failed to state a claim against ADA Murphy because “[a]cts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of absolute immunity.”

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a prosecutor for a decision whether to dismiss charges, because prosecutorial immunity covers that decision.

Jackson v. Golick · filed 2022-01-26

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983. ... Whether to dismiss charges against a defendant is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. So prosecutorial immunity bars this claim.

Prosecutorial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against a defendant entitled to that immunity.

Hung Nguyen v. Yolo County District Attorney · filed 2022-01-27

The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and state law, because defendant is entitled to prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when the prosecutors act as advocates in postconviction proceedings.

Ford v. Hinsperger · filed 2022-02-07

Here, it is unquestionable that Defendant was acting as an advocate on behalf of the state and personally involved in Plaintiff’s motion for postconviction forensic DNA testing. ... In short, the Court concludes Defendant is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a prosecutor are barred by absolute immunity when the alleged conduct is part of prosecuting a criminal case.

MILLER v. RIVAS · filed 2022-02-08

Plaintiff’s claims against Vitale are similarly not actionable under § 1983. ... But with respect to this claim, Vitale is entitled to prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for advocacy acts, including seeking trial continuances and handling evidence.

McIlvenna v. Johnson · filed 2022-02-14

The filing of motions to continue the trial and the handling of evidence are acts undertaken by Johnson in the course of her role as an advocate for Minnehaha County. Johnson is thus entitled to prosecutorial immunity for these actions.

Section 1983 damages claims against prosecutors are barred when the challenged actions involve initiating and pursuing a prosecution.

Charles: v. Pender · filed 2022-02-16

Plaintiff seeks damages against Pender for allegedly wrongful actions she committed in the course of initiating and pursing a prosecution. However, prosecutors are immune from such claims.

Section 1983 does not provide retrospective declaratory relief for alleged prosecutorial wrongdoing after the criminal case has ended.

Abdul-Matiyn v. District Attorney's Office Bronx County · filed 2022-02-22

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims for declaratory relief are therefore barred by both the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment, and fail to present a justiciable case or controversy and are therefore dismissed.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from section 1983 suits for conduct undertaken as advocates for the state.

Hayes v. Henderson · filed 2022-02-24

A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from suit under section 1983 for any conduct undertaken in his or her role as advocate for the state.

Section 1983 damages claims against a prosecutor can be barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

LILLEY v. HIRZ · filed 2022-02-24

Because Plaintiff seeks an award of monetary damages from Assistant District Attorney Hirz, his claims are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for participating in grand jury proceedings, even if they act in bad faith.

Washington v. State of Ohio · filed 2022-03-04

A prosecutor’s involvement in grand jury proceedings is a typical prosecutorial function for which he or she is immune.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages under Section 1983 for conduct associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case, including evaluating evidence for presentation to a grand jury.

York v. Sarabia · filed 2022-03-08

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for damages under Section 1983 for conduct that is functionally prosecutorial; this immunity is understood to broadly cover all conduct associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

In § 1983 damages actions, prosecutors have absolute immunity for advocacy within a colorable claim of authority, even if they lack probable cause or act with improper motives.

Anilao v. Spota · filed 2022-03-09

A narrow limitation to the scope of absolute immunity in § 1983 actions thus exists where the defect is jurisdictional — that is, where the prosecutor acted well outside the scope of authority, rather than where the defect relates, as here, to the prosecutor’s motivation or the reasonableness of his official action. The jurisdictional defect must be clear and obvious.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for money damages arising from their work as advocates.

Altman v. Nassa County District Attorney's Office · filed 2022-03-14

The other Defendant, an unnamed NCDA Assistant District Attorney, also is immune. ... Plaintiff’s claim against the NCDA Assistant District Attorney, which seeks monetary damages, therefore must be dismissed.

A prosecutor entitled to prosecutorial immunity may be dismissed from a § 1983 action with prejudice.

Cunningham v. Hunt · filed 2022-03-16

The July 28 Report recommends that Defendant Bill Weeks, misidentified as Bill Wheats in the caption of this case, be summarily dismissed from this case with prejudice and without issuance and service of process because he is entitled to prosecutorial immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. ... Accordingly, the court reviews the July 28 Report for clear error, and finding none, adopts the Report in its entirety.

Judges and prosecutors are immune from § 1983 damages claims for actions taken in the course of judicial proceedings.

Payno v. Vespa · filed 2022-03-17

Even if a federal claim could be stated, Judge Vespa and Assistant State's Attorney are immune from this lawsuit.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against a prosecutor for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal prosecution.

Brown v. Caird · filed 2022-03-18

Brown and DeBoest’s claims are intimately associated with Caird’s role as a prosecutor during the judicial phase of prosecution because they involve actions taken during the prosecution of their charges. Therefore, the claims for monetary damages should be dismissed because Caird enjoys absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on prosecutors for conduct within their roles as advocates that is intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal prosecution.

Dixon v. Director, Office of the District Attorney · filed 2022-03-21

Defendants are state prosecuting attorneys and have absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as they act within their roles as advocates for the State and their actions are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976).

Section 1983 damages claims are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity when the challenged conduct involves deciding whether to bring charges, including evaluating evidence for that decision.

Estate of Suzanne Bardzell v. Gomperts · filed 2022-03-22

Because Gomperts’ alleged actions were all prosecutorial in nature, she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against prosecutors for conduct in prosecuting a criminal case.

DENT v. MORRIS · filed 2022-03-23

As such, they are absolutely immune from damages under section 1983.

A prosecutor has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim for retaining a car to seek a witness’s cooperation in a prosecution when the retention falls within the prosecutor’s advocacy role and colorable authority.

Rabadi v. City of Yonkers · filed 2022-03-25

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against ADA Bendish based on his retention of plaintiff’s car in exchange for plaintiff’s cooperation must be dismissed.

A prosecutor has absolute immunity from Section 1983 damages claims arising from the prosecution of a case.

Lepper v. Village of Babylon · filed 2022-03-29

The claims against Glass relate to the Village’s prosecution of Lepper for the unpermitted tree house, and therefore, absolute immunity is warranted.

Section 1983 does not give a prosecutor absolute immunity for public statements accompanying publication of a Brady-Giglio list.

Lynem v. Worthy · filed 2022-03-31

Rather, the court must determine whether absolute immunity extends to a prosecutor’s statements made in connection with the publication of a Brady-Giglio list. ... Consequently, the court finds that absolute immunity does not apply.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against prosecutors for acts related to initiating and presenting criminal prosecutions.

(PS) Foster v. Schubert · filed 2022-04-04

Defendant is immune from a suit for damages under § 1983 for acts related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions.

Section 1983 claims for damages against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when they arise from initiating or pursuing a criminal prosecution, even if vindictive prosecution is alleged.

Moore v. Hellmann · filed 2022-04-06

Absolute immunity also protects prosecutors against claims arising from their initiation of a prosecution and presenting a criminal case, even when vindictive prosecution is alleged. ... Plaintiff’s claims against Hayes involve actions he took in his capacity as an assistant prosecuting attorney pursuing criminal charges against a plaintiff for the state. Plaintiff’s claims against Hayes are barred by immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on prosecutors for acts within their official duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution.

Hughes v. Disilvestro · filed 2022-04-08

Prosecutors acting within the scope of their duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution are immune to suit under § 1983. ... Smith, therefore, enjoys immunity from §1983 liability for those acts and the claims against him will be dismissed.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for writing the government’s brief in a direct criminal appeal.

Edward Ray, Jr. v. Lara · filed 2022-04-11

It has long been established that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damages suits under § 1983 for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” ... We agree that writing the appellate brief on behalf of the government in a direct appeal in a criminal case is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against prosecutors for acts protected by prosecutorial immunity during the initiation and prosecution of criminal charges.

Townsend v. Marengo · filed 2022-04-13

The amended complaint appears to claim that defendant Mitchell should be liable in damages for actions that are protected by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow claims against prosecutors and judges for their prosecutorial and sentencing decisions because they are immune from suit.

Jones v. Case Records at Salinas Valley State Prison · filed 2022-04-18

Amendment of the complaint to bring his claims against these officials would be futile because they are immune from suit under Section 1983 for their prosecutorial and sentencing decisions.

Section 1983 prosecutors have absolute immunity for acts performed in their prosecutorial role at a criminal preliminary hearing.

RISTER v. BURKE · filed 2022-04-18

Because Rister’s claims against Krouse are based upon Krouse’s actions as a prosecutor for Commonwealth at Rister’s preliminary hearing on the criminal charges against Rister, he is entitled to absolute immunity and the claims against him will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as any attempt to amend would be futile.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a prosecutor for conduct within the scope of prosecutorial immunity.

Dupens v. Haruska · filed 2022-04-22

Plaintiff has failed to allege any conduct that falls outside the scope of prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims for conduct within their role as advocates, including in-court conduct and plea bargaining.

PICKETT v. BROWN · filed 2022-04-22

Therefore, it is crystal clear that Plaintiff’s allegations as to Klavens relate to her role as a prosecutor and advocate and are entitled to the protection of absolute immunity.

State prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case.

Wesley v. Hoos · filed 2022-04-25

Despite Plaintiff’s allegations, “state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suits under § 1983 for activities that are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.’” ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on their conduct in initiating and maintaining a criminal prosecution.

Paulk v. Benson · filed 2022-04-27

All the allegations against the ASA Defendants concern their conduct in “initiating and maintaining a criminal action,” so these defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from suit.

State prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case.

Wesley v. Tazewell County States Attorney · filed 2022-04-27

Despite Plaintiff’s allegations, “state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suits under § 1983 for activities that are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.’” ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors may be barred by judicial or prosecutorial immunity.

McCool v. Northumberland County · filed 2022-05-02

Second, the Court continues to find that the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action suffer from numerous fatal defects: ... (3) Defendants (who are prosecutors sued in their official capacities) are protected from liability as a matter of law based on judicial and/or prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims for conduct in their role as advocates, even when they present false testimony or suppress evidence.

Crespo v. State of Georgia · filed 2022-05-03

And when acting in such a capacity, prosecutors are immune even for presenting false testimony and suppressing evidence.

Prosecutors are immune from § 1983 claims based on conduct associated with prosecuting a criminal case.

Townsend v. Jacobs · filed 2022-05-09

Additionally, prosecutors are immune from lawsuits based on their conduct associated with prosecuting a criminal case, including the conduct Plaintiff alleges.

State solicitors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages for conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal prosecution.

Gaines v. Eaton · filed 2022-05-12

The Magistrate Judge finds that the state solicitors are entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability under § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations committed in the course of proceedings that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” ... The court has thoroughly reviewed the record and concurs in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 14, is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity to prosecutors for seeking indictments before grand juries.

Wallender v. Harney County · filed 2022-05-19

The district court properly dismissed the Wallenders’ complaint against Hughes because prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for seeking indictments before grand juries.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against prosecutors for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case, including initiating a prosecution.

Shields v. Williams · filed 2022-06-02

Since McMonagle’s alleged actions were “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” and “in a judicial capacity,” there is no plausible claim against McMonagle. ... Thus, prosecutorial immunity bars any claims for damages against McMonagle and Salavantis.

Section 1983 creates a federal cause of action that supplements state remedies, and prior state proceedings concerning the same general subject matter do not by themselves require dismissal.

Burchett v. Bower · filed 1973-02-28

The Civil Eights Act was intended to override certain kinds of state laws, to provide a federal remedy where the state remedy, although adequate in theory, was not available in practice, and to provide a remedy in federal court supplementary to any the state might have. ... It creates a new cause of action in federal court. ... Prior state court proceedings concerning the same general subject matter cannot by themselves require dismissal of a Civil Rights Act case.

Section 1983 does not provide a means to replace ordinary state appellate procedures when plaintiffs seek federal intervention in ongoing state-court proceedings.

Hyden v. Clark · filed 1973-02-07

The matter does not properly lie within the ambit of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek to substitute the Civil Rights Act for the State appellate procedure. This practice was rejected in Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Association, 431 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir., 1970).

Section 1983 claims are subject to res judicata.

Jamerson v. Lennox · filed 1973-03-28

It applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970).

Section 1983 cannot be used to obtain federal district-court review of state-court proceedings by relitigating issues decided, or that should have been raised, in state court.

Schroeder v. Illinois · filed 1965-11-02

These allegations, even if true, dp not present either a ground for a federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the state court admittedly had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, Chance v. County Board of School Trustees, 332 F.2d 971, 974 (7th Cir. 1964); or a ground upon which to obtain review of the state court proceedings by a federal district court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 through invocation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1963).

Section 1983 permits disruption of orderly state proceedings only under extraordinary circumstances involving threatened irreparable injury to federally created rights.

Lenske v. F. M. Sercombe, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State Oforegon · filed 1968-10-18

However, if an exception is created it is clear that orderly state proceedings are not to be disrupted save under extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury is threatened to federally created rights.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right under color of state law, and a challenge to state proceedings turns on that deprivation rather than merely on alleged errors in those proceedings.

Siegel v. Regents of the University of California · filed 1970-01-19

We have well in mind that plaintiff’s suit cannot be and should not be, treated as a mere petition for review of the university’s proceedings. It is a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the allegations of the complaint must be considered as raising new and distinct issues for trial de novo. However, the issue raised by this civil rights complaint is, not whether plaintiff was in fact guilty of violating university rules or any other law, nor whether his subjective intent was, in fact, innocent and therefore, a defense to the charges, nor whether the university hearing board’s findings on the evidence before it were correct, but, rather, and only whether the university in charging, trying and disciplining plaintiff under the circumstances shown on the face of the complaint, deprived plaintiff of any federally protected constitutional right.

Section 1983 claims may be adjudicated under collateral-estoppel principles, allowing issues decided in an earlier proceeding to preclude relitigation.

Harry Warren and Stephen Nanna v. Edward Byrne and John Guldi · filed 1983-01-25

The district court’s ruling was also correct as applied to the section 1983 claim under collateral estoppel principles.

A prior habeas denial does not preclude a section 1983 damages claim when damages were unavailable in habeas and the habeas appeal became moot before review.

Hurd v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-07-28

We therefore hold that the Superior Court’s unreviewed denial of Hurd’s habeas petition does not preclude him from asserting his section 1983 due process claims against the District of Columbia.

Reasoned denials of California habeas petitions can preclude a later Section 1983 action involving the same claim or issue.

Rodriguez v. Koenig · filed 2020-12-31

Reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim or issue preclusive effect on subsequent section 1983 actions.

Section 1983 does not create an exception to judicial immunity for judges acting in their judicial capacities.

Smallwood v. United States · filed 1973-04-23

Inasmuch as plaintiff's complaint alleges relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, it should be noted that the Civil Rights Act creates no exception to judicial immunity.

Section 1983 generally does not permit damages claims against judges for acts within their judicial duties, but judicial immunity may not apply when a judge acts outside those duties.

Cross v. Byrum · filed 1972-09-25

The memorandum cites the Court to various cases holding that Judges and Justices of the Peace are immune from damages under the Civil Rights Acts. ... While this is true as a general proposition of law, it must be candidly admitted that it is not yet a universal proposition. There may be presented facts where it appears beyond peradventure that a Judge was acting outside the performance of his judicial duties. ... This appears to leave open the possibility of some circumstances where the immunity would not apply.

Section 1983 does not allow suits against judicial officers for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Andrews v. Thomas J. Murphy, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan · filed 1965-07-30

Furthermore, judicial officers are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a quasi-judicial officer protected by judicial immunity for actions taken in that capacity.

Sarelas v. Sheehan · filed 1965-10-27

That Complaint purports to set out a cause of action under the Civil Rights statute, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Plaintiff argues that the defendant was not in fact acting as a Master in Chancery, but it is apparent to us from a close scrutiny of the Complaint that he was in fact acting as a quasi-judicial officer entitled to judicial immunity and we so hold.

Section 1983 does not provide a damages action against a judge for acts performed in a judicial capacity, such as setting bail.

Jackson v. Hammock · filed 1971-01-26

Even though he accepts this aspect of plaintiff’s allegation, it is clear that defendant is immune from suit under the Civil Rights Act while acting in a judicial capacity in setting bail.

Section 1983 does not abolish judicial immunity for judges acting in their judicial capacity.

Golden v. Smith · filed 1971-02-12

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not abolish the immunity of judges for their judicial acts.

Section 1983 does not provide relief against a state court judge protected by judicial immunity when the judge acted within the court’s jurisdiction.

Jacobson v. Schaefer · filed 1969-12-31

There is no absence of jurisdiction in the instant case so as to invoke an exception to the normal rule of judicial immunity. ... The plaintiff is not entitled to relief in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 preserves common-law judicial immunity for judges acting within their jurisdiction and does not require exhaustion of state remedies for a parole-revocation claim that does not attack a state-court trial, sentence, or judgment.

Bransted v. Schmidt · filed 1971-04-15

Pierson established that 42 U. S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate the common law immunity of judges for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the claim against Judge O’Connell for damages is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... Defendant Schmidt’s final contention is that this action should be dismissed because it is actually a habeas corpus petition, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to circumvent the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). ... Since the plaintiff herein is not attacking his trial nor sentencing in the state courts, and since he is not seeking to avoid the present effects on him of a state court judgment, the allegations in his complaint concerning his parole revocation need not be raised before state courts nor state administrative agencies before being presented to this court.

Section 1983 does not eliminate judicial immunity, which protects prosecutors for acts within their jurisdiction.

John Madison and Kim Madison v. Richard E. Gerstein and E. Wilson Purdy · filed 1971-03-24

The principle of judicial immunity had been “the settled doctrine of the English courts for many centuries” when adopted by our Supreme Court and was not abolished by § 1983, “which makes liable ‘every person’ who under color of law deprives another person of his civil rights.” This immunity has been extended to prosecutors, who are considered part of the judicial process.

Section 1983 damages claims against judicial officers are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts performed in their judicial capacities.

Multi-Family Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Municipal Court of Philadelphia · filed 1982-03-03

At the outset, it is clear that plaintiffs’ claim under section 1983 for monetary damages against judicial officers named in the complaint must be dismissed since the Supreme Court has consistently held that such officers “enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities.”

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a probation officer who is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for discretionary duties performed within a quasi-judicial process.

Hall v. Schaeffer · filed 1983-01-28

I also find that Lynott is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from damages in this civil rights suit.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Harris v. Ashby · filed 2002-07-11

The district court did not err in dismissing Harris’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Judge Anne Ashby on the basis of judicial immunity. Because Harris has failed to show that Judge Ashby’s challenged acts were non-judicial in nature and were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction, Judge Ashby is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief against state judges under § 1983.

Silva v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2002-08-06

Rather, it seeks only injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, Silva’s claims against the state court judges for injunc-tive relief are not barred by judicial immunity.

In these circumstances, quasi-judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim is available to officials sued in their personal capacities, but not to the town or officials sued in their official capacities.

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure · filed 2002-08-26

Only the individual Defendants in their personal capacities, not the Defendants in their official capacities or the Town itself, can assert quasi-judicial immunity in these circumstances.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims for conducting trials because conducting a trial is a judicial function.

Hollowell v. Johnson · filed 2002-09-12

Judge Munson, who presided over the municipal court trial at which Hollowell initially was found guilty, was entitled to judicial immunity, because conducting a trial is a judicial function.

Absolute judicial immunity can bar § 1983 claims against a court and a workers’ compensation appeals board.

Wildey v. General Atomics · filed 2002-09-17

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the California Supreme Court and the California Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board on the basis of absolute judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts such as presiding over a trial.

McLaughlin v. Rendon · filed 2002-09-17

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Superior Court Judge Borst on the ground of absolute judicial immunity because presiding over McLaughlin’s trial was clearly a judicial act.

Court clerks have quasi-judicial immunity from § 1983 damages claims based on their failure to provide requested copies of filings and transcripts.

Lyle v. Jackson · filed 2002-09-17

Lyle sought monetary damages from two court clerks whom he alleged failed to provide him with requested copies of previous filings and transcripts. The complaint was properly dismissed as to these defendants on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity.

Judges are absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims for money damages arising from acts within their judicial function.

Travis v. Miller · filed 2002-09-27

The plaintiff does not allege that the Judicial Defendants acted or failed to act outside of their judicial function. Accordingly, Travis’ federal and state law claims for money damages against the Judicial Defendants are barred.

A judge is not entitled to absolute judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim for publishing a press release explaining a recusal, because the press release is not a judicial act.

Yoder v. Workman · filed 2002-10-04

A press release about the recusal order was not a judicial act and, as such, absolute judicial immunity does not apply to shield its author.

Judicial immunity can bar a § 1983 action seeking injunctive relief against judges.

McManama v. Frye · filed 2002-10-11

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing McManama’s action for injunctive relief because defendants are judicially immune.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a judge for acts within the scope of judicial duties performed with jurisdiction.

Collins v. Deegan · filed 2002-10-23

Second, Judge Deegan is entitled to judicial immunity from suit for monetary damages because he acted within the scope of his official duties as a judge and had jurisdictional authority to preside over the criminal proceedings involving Collins and the civil action brought by Aetna Insurance Co.

Section 1983 damages claims against officials performing quasi-judicial functions are subject to quasi-judicial immunity.

Hale O Kaula Church v. Maui Planning Commission · filed 2002-10-24

In all respects, the individual Defendants functioned in a quasi-judicial capacity and are entitled to such immunity from claims for damages. ... This immunity applies to the section 1983 claims.

Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from § 1983 suits challenging their judgments.

Haywood v. Hawkins · filed 2002-12-03

Because Judges Hawkins, Tashima and Gould are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from Haywood’s suit, dismissal was proper.

A § 1983 claim against a judge fails when the judge is entitled to judicial immunity.

Wilson v. Todd · filed 2002-12-09

Third, Wilson’s complaint against Judge Todd fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because Judge Todd is entitled to judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts taken within their subject matter jurisdiction, even if those acts were unlawful.

Hass v. Wisconsin · filed 2003-01-16

Thus, Judge Michelson’s actions were not taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction. ... Even if Judge Michelson acted unlawfully, his actions were, at most, in excess of his jurisdiction. ... Thus, he is immune from suit for damages.

Section 1983 judicial immunity protects a judge who exceeds his authority in a particular case but does not act in the complete absence of all subject matter jurisdiction.

Goldberg v. Maloney · filed 2003-02-03

Thus, the probate judge was entitled to judicial immunity because he did not act in the complete absence of all subject matter jurisdiction, even though it was later determined that he had exceeded his authority by entering the prejudgment attachment order.

Absolute judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against a judge for judicial acts taken without a clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Fassler v. Collins · filed 2003-02-14

Absolute immunity bars Fassler’s claims against the defendant trial judge because the trial judge did not act in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” and his actions were judicial in nature.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for their judicial decisions, even when those decisions are alleged to be incorrect or malicious.

Kuhn v. Milwaukee County · filed 2003-02-18

The state judges had absolute immunity for their judicial decisions — this is so even if they were, as Kuhn alleges, incorrect or decided with malicious intent toward her.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims alleging that state court judges conspired to rule against a litigant.

Federman v. County of Santa Barbara · filed 2003-03-14

The district court properly dismissed Federman’s claim alleging that state court judges conspired to rule against him, because such claims are barred by judicial immunity.

Court employees protected by quasi-judicial immunity cannot be held liable for money damages under Section 1983.

Chavis v. Fuerst · filed 2003-05-02

First, the district court properly dismissed Chavis’s claims for money damages as to the defendant court employees on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge for imposing a sentence.

Holguin v. Salvant · filed 2003-05-06

The district court was correct to dismiss Holguin’s claims under judicial immunity.

Judges and States are immune from suit under Section 1983.

Duboys v. Bomba · filed 2003-05-08

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its orders of February 1, 2002, May 2, 2002, and June 15, 2002, we hold that the judges and the State are immune from suit and that Du-boys has failed to state a claim against any of the remaining defendants.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a judge for judicial acts taken in excess of jurisdiction unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Friedman v. Brown · filed 2003-05-14

Under the allegations of the complaint, defendant herein acted in excess of his jurisdiction, but it cannot be said that he acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction under the above cases.

A magistrate judge is immune from a Section 1983 action for judicial acts within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Young v. Edwards · filed 2003-05-16

California state prisoner Eddie Young appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing Young’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a federal magistrate judge refused to consider new evidence, to hold an evidentiary hearing, and to return evidence to Young in a prior habeas action. ... We review de novo the dismissal of a suit based on judicial immunity, Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against Merit Systems Protection Board judges.

Vanderford v. United States · filed 2003-06-18

The district court properly dismissed Vanderford’s claims against the Merit Systems Protection Board judges based on judicial immunity.

A judge may be absolutely immune from liability in a § 1983 suit.

Foster v. Moye · filed 2003-06-24

Judge Moye is absolutely immune from liability.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges and judicial employees are barred when the challenged acts were performed as judicial or quasi-judicial duties.

Wojnicz v. Davis · filed 2003-07-29

A judge performing his or her judicial functions is absolutely immune from suits seeking monetary damages. ... Judicial employees are immune from damages for the performance of quasi-judicial duties. ... Whether or not they committed any errors in handling Wojnicz’s habeas petition, they are immune from suit for monetary damages.

Absolute judicial immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against a judge at summary judgment.

Stringer v. Herbert · filed 2003-08-07

The district court granted Herbert’s summary judgment motion, and denied Stringer’s summary judgment motion as moot, on the basis that Herbert was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from the claims brought in Stringer’s complaint. After a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the summary judgment evidence supports the district court’s actions and that Stringer has not shown on appeal that summary judgment was not properly entered against him.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary damages against a judge for a judicial act performed within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Carlton v. Baird · filed 2003-08-08

Judges are absolutely immune from suit for monetary damages unless the action complained of was non-judicial or was performed in the complete absence of jurisdiction. ... Neither exception applied in this case, and the absolute immunity of the defendant therefore compelled dismissal.

State judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability when they act within their jurisdiction.

Manor v. Texas Supreme Court Justices · filed 2003-08-11

Because the state judges were entitled to absolute immunity from liability and Manor did not allege that they acted in the absence of all jurisdiction, the district court did not err in dismissing Manor’s complaint in part for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judges are immune from § 1983 liability for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Hobbs v. United States · filed 2003-08-19

Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings. ... Judge Hoyt did not lack jurisdiction in Hobbs’s previous case because Hobbs’s prior interlocutory appeal challenging the venue of his hearing was not appealable. ... Consequently, Judge Hoyt and the United States of America are entitled to absolute immunity.

State judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits challenging their judicial rulings.

Nathan v. Smith · filed 2003-08-19

The district court properly concluded that the defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from suit and did not err by denying the motion to reconsider.

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims for actions undertaken in their judicial capacity.

Haile v. Sawyer · filed 2003-09-17

The district court properly dismissed Haile’s claims against the judges because judges are entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken in their judicial capacity, and all of Haile’s claims are based on the judges’ rulings or courtroom conduct.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against state judges for acts in their judicial capacity.

Tsabbar v. Booth · filed 2003-09-29

Reading the complaint (very) liberally, the Court construes Plaintiffs claims against State Defendants as claims for denial of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages from the State Defendants in their individual capacities, judicial immunity is a barrier.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, even when bias is alleged.

Bradley v. Gray · filed 2003-10-14

It is firmly established that judges enjoy absolute immunity from suit for all “judicial acts” unless they have acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” ... Nor does the fact that Plaintiff brought a § 1983 action alter the applicability of this doctrine. ... Judge Gray therefore enjoys absolute immunity in this case.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims challenging acts performed in their judicial capacity.

Weissbrod v. Housing Part of the Civil Court of New York · filed 2003-10-23

Magistrate Judge Maas also correctly determined that Plaintiffs “claims against the Housing Court judges and administrative judges also fail because they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.” Report at 21.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against judges for judicial acts within their jurisdiction.

Silvels v. New York · filed 2003-11-19

For the reasons stated in the District Court’s order, appellant’s claims against Judges Trotto and Klein and the People of the State of New York were properly dismissed on the grounds of judicial and Eleventh Amendment immunity.

A judge is immune from a § 1983 claim based on judicial acts unless those acts were nonjudicial or taken completely without jurisdiction.

Nixon v. State of Texas · filed 2003-12-09

Because Nixon does not complain of any actions by Judge Green that were nonjudicial in nature or taken completely without jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed any claim against her as frivolous based on her judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when the complaint does not allege that they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Alex-Mitchell v. State · filed 2003-12-15

The appellant failed to allege how any of the acts of the defendants John G. Marks, Dana Mitchell Jaffe, Julianne S. Eisman, and Richard Lawrence were undertaken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” ... Hence, these defendants enjoy judicial immunity from civil liability (see Misek-Falkoff v Donovan, 250 AD2d 579 [1998] ; Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653 [1992]; Sassower v Finnerty, 96 AD2d 585 [1983]).

Section 1983 generally bars injunctive relief against judicial officers for acts performed in their judicial capacity.

Gilbert v. Ferry · filed 2003-12-19

By enacting the 1996 Federal Courts Improvement Act (hereinafter the “FCIA”), Congress has expanded the ambit of judicial immunity by amending § 1983 so as to prohibit injunctive relief against a judicial officer.

Section 1983 judicial immunity covers a judge’s decision made within the scope of judicial duties.

Elwood v. Drescher · filed 2004-01-02

Elwood contends that Judge MacLaughlin is not entitled to judicial immunity because he acted in excess of his jurisdiction. The complaint turns on Judge MacLaughlin’s decision that Zakon would hear Elwood’s case, but nothing suggests that MacLaughlin’s actions were outside the scope of his judicial duties as the presiding judge of the California Superior Court North Valley District.

Judicial immunity protects judges from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Becker · filed 2004-01-15

Judicial immunity protects judges against state law claims, as well as civil rights actions brought under 42 USC § 1983.

Judges acting in their judicial capacity have absolute judicial immunity from § 1983 claims.

Carter v. Daniels · filed 2004-01-27

Judge Pearman and Judge Gambill were acting at all times relevant to Carter’s allegations in their judicial capacity. It is well settled that the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is applicable in actions that are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not impose civil liability on a justice of the peace for issuing a criminal warrant within her jurisdiction, even if her motives were wrongful.

Fraley ex rel. Fraley v. Ramey · filed 1965-04-01

It is, therefore, the opinion of this court that, since the justice in this case, in the issuance of the warrant, did have jurisdiction of the subject-matter (the crime of rape) and of the person (Fraley, the accused), her act in issuing the warrant was a judicial one for which she has judicial immunity from civil liability, however wrongful her motives might have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to Fraley.

Section 1983 does not subject judges to liability for acts performed as part of their judicial duties.

Salvati v. Dale · filed 1973-10-05

The actions and rulings of Judge Hester were part of his official duties of office, and he is, therefore, immune from any action brought under the Civil Rights Act. For this reason, the cause of action against the Honorable John P. Hester, Judge of the Common Pleas Court must be dismissed.

A judge is absolutely immune from a Section 1983 claim based on judicial acts performed in a case within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Marceaux v. The Citizen David Norton · filed 2004-02-19

Giving Plaintiff the benefit of every doubt, we will interpret his lawsuit as though it was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides, in relevant part, as follows: ... The Soddy Daisy City Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the citation and Defendant was clearly performing a judicial function when he found Plaintiff guilty and imposed a fine. In short, Defendant simply was doing his job as a judge. Plaintiff cannot proceed on his claims because Defendant is absolutely immune.

Judges are absolutely immune from Section 1983 damages claims for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Marshall v. Bowles · filed 2004-03-15

All of the alleged acts by Judge Bowles are judicial functions exercised under proper jurisdictional authority and thus Judge Bowles is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity under § 1983 shields a judge from damages for defending decisions within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in habeas proceedings.

Harris v. Harvey · filed 1977-06-30

The concept of judicial immunity is broad enough to shield a judge from liability for his efforts to justify in habeas corpus proceedings the determinations arrived at in matters over which he had subject matter jurisdiction. I will therefore grant summary judgment to the defendant as to the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the complaint.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts unless they act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Temple v. Celebrezze · filed 2004-03-23

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Temple’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Judges are absolutely immune from suit for monetary damages unless the action complained of was nonjudicial or was performed in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

A judge acting within the court’s jurisdiction has judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim even when accused of taking a bribe.

Sidney A. Sparks, R. L. Lynd, D/B/A Sidney A. Sparks, Trustee, Plaintiffs v. Duval County Ranch Company, Inc. · filed 1979-03-09

Because it is clear that Carrillo had jurisdiction over the action filed by Manges against the plaintiffs, we must affirm the district court’s determination that Carrillo’s act in entering the temporary injunction was cloaked with judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for actions within their judicial jurisdiction and responsibilities.

DuQUIN v. KOLBERT · filed 2004-04-15

In this matter, it is clear from the allegations of the complaint that Judge Kolbert is being sued solely for actions taken within the scope of his jurisdiction and responsibilities as a Town Justice. Plaintiff alleges that when he appeared before Kolbert following his arrest in Cheektowaga, Kolbert failed to provide him with a sign language interpreter. Accordingly, Kolbert is entitled to- absolute judicial immunity and the complaint must be dismissed against him.