42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims cannot overcome absolute immunity for prosecutors and witnesses performing functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case.

Johnson v. Griffin · filed 1996-08-21

Prosecutors and witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for performance of their functions which are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

An official acting within the scope of his authority is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims arising from compliance with a facially valid judicial order issued by a court acting within its jurisdiction.

Mays v. Sudderth · filed 1996-10-16

Consequently, we conclude that an official acting within the scope of his authority is absolutely immune from a suit for damages to the extent that the cause of action arises from his compliance with a facially valid judicial order issued by a court acting within its jurisdiction.

Section 1983 gives social workers absolute immunity for participation in child neglect proceedings, but not for investigating neglect or removing a child before obtaining a court order.

Katz v. DCYS · filed 1996-11-20

Accordingly, defendant Sargent is entitled to absolute immunity from liability as to any § 1983 claims that are based upon her participation in the probable cause hearing on December 2 1 , 1991, but not as to claims based upon her investigation of the report of neglect, or her decision to remove Eleonora prior to obtaining a court order.

Section 1983 affords absolute prosecutorial immunity to a district attorney’s office investigator who seeks an arrest warrant in connection with filing criminal charges as part of initiating a prosecution.

Roberts v. Kling · filed 1997-01-06

We conclude that defendant is entitled to absolute immunity for seeking an arrest warrant in connection with the charges being filed against plaintiff under the auspices of the District Attorney’s office.

A parole officer has absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim for conduct within the scope of supervising parolees.

Weldon Eugene Wiggins, II v. James Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections Duane Daniels California Boar · filed 1997-01-24

On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for Daniels concluding that he was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Specifically, the district court held that Daniels was entitled to summary judgment because Wiggins failed to submit any evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Daniels was acting within the scope of his duties as Wiggins's parole officer when he recommended that a hold be placed upon Wiggins's parole. We agree.

Section 1983 does not give a child welfare worker absolute immunity for investigative conduct in a child custody proceeding.

Miller v. City of Philadelphia · filed 1997-01-29

The court holds that Scheer is not entitled to absolute immunity because his alleged tortious conduct, as stated in the complaint, took place during the investigative phrase of the child custody proceeding.

Section 1983 gives government attorneys absolute immunity for standard advocacy functions in civil litigation on behalf of the government.

Dinsdale v. Commonwealth · filed 1997-02-03

As with government prosecutors, the cloak of absolute immunity extends only to the attorneys’ performance of standard advocacy functions for the Commonwealth.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges for custody rulings, and against state employees and medical witnesses integral to those proceedings, are barred by absolute immunity.

Harrison v. Bailey · filed 1997-02-06

This complaint was properly dismissed because all of the defendants are absolutely immune. The juvenile and circuit court judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damage claims based on their rulings in the custody proceedings. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225-29 (1988). The same immunity extends to the remainder of the defendants as integral parts of the judicial process, including state employees who prosecute child neglect and delinquency petitions and medical professionals who provide information as witnesses in the proceedings.

Section 1983 affords members of a state nursing board absolute immunity from damages for actions taken in their adjudicatory role.

Duncan v. Mississippi Board of Nursing · filed 1997-02-07

Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, this court finds that the individually named defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause are entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court’s decision is addressed only to the immunity enjoyed by the Mississippi Board of Nursing from damages liability under § 1983 for actions taken in its adjudicatory role.

State probation officers have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims arising from their preparation and filing of presentence reports.

Hili v. Sciarotta · filed 1997-02-22

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the defendants Joseph L. Sciarot-ta, Director of Nassau County Department of Probation and Diane Eich, Probation Officer, are entitled to absolute immunity in connection with their participation in the preparing and filing of the presentence report in this case.

Section 1983 affords child welfare workers absolute immunity for actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings, including formulating recommendations to the court.

Ernst v. Child & Youth Services of Chester County · filed 1997-03-12

Applying the principles set forth in Butz, Imbler, and their progeny to the instant case, we hold that the CYS defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings. Their immunity is broad enough to include the formulation and presentation of recommendations to the court in the course of such proceedings.

Section 1983 bars damages claims against grievance committee counsel and staff in their individual capacities when their disciplinary work falls within the committee’s jurisdiction.

Thaler v. Casella · filed 1997-03-19

Thus, defendants, as Chief Counsel and law clerk to the Grievance Committee, are entitled to absolute immunity from damages in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 claims based on law enforcement officers’ pre-trial testimony generally face absolute immunity, unless the testimony initiates a baseless prosecution.

Kennie v. White Plains Police Department's Vice Control Unit · filed 1997-03-28

Generally, law enforcement officers who testify at pre-trial hearings are entitled to absolute immunity for their testimony. ... However, civil perjury claims are not barred by absolute immunity if the law enforcement officer's testimony is the means of "initiating a baseless prosecution."

Section 1983 damages claims against state bar officials are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the officials perform judicial or prosecutorial functions in attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Black v. Clegg · filed 1997-05-09

When the Bar and its officials participate judicially in that regulation, the court’s cloak of judicial immunity reaches far enough to cover them. Thus, Clegg as Bar president and Baldwin as Bar executive acting as clerk of the disciplinary court are immune from suit. The same reasoning applies to a section 1986 suit, because if immunity bars a section 1983 action for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, there can be no liability for failure to prevent such a deprivation.

Officials conducting investigative evidence gathering in a licensing disciplinary proceeding lack absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for those acts, even when the licensing board also performs adjudicative functions.

Berthiaume v. Caron · filed 1997-07-10

The Board members were acting in a detective’s role in searching for clues making their actions preparatory to that of the judicial or traditional prosecutorial function. ... Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants Clark, Caron, and Bivins’ motions for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not permit suit for an official’s conduct in preparing a pre-sentence report because that conduct is absolutely immune.

Parejo v. Roberts · filed 1997-07-17

Here, the allegations of Parejo's complaint and those of his amended complaint deal solely with Roberts's official conduct in preparing Parejo's pre-sentence report. Roberts is absolutely immune from suit for such conduct.

Qualified and absolute immunity do not extend to suits for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Valley v. Rapides Prsh Sch Bd · filed 1997-08-28

Second, the appellants’ argument of qualified immunity is without merit. It is well established law in this Circuit that the defenses of qualified and absolute immunity do not extend to suits for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Absolute immunity bars a § 1983 claim against defendants entitled to that immunity.

Ikie v. Silva · filed 1997-08-29

We affirm the district court's dismissal of defendants Silva, Weed, Jerbic, and Bowman on the bases of absolute immunity.

A § 1983 complaint alleging a prosecutor’s communications with the media and other attorneys general can survive a motion to dismiss based on absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Suarez Corp. Industries v. McGraw · filed 1997-09-11

Thus, looking only to the face of the complaint, Forst, 4 F.3d at 250, SCI's own allegations do not show that the defense of absolute immunity will vitiate entirely its ability to recover on any of these eight counts, since each alleges communications to the media, controlled by Buckley, and other attor- neys general, controlled by Burns.

A parole officer has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for seeking a parole warrant and filing a violation report when those acts are prosecutorial.

Taylor v. Sullivan · filed 1997-10-08

Although Sullivan also performed investigative work for which she would be entitled only to qualified immunity, ... her challenged conduct here was similar to that of a “prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings,” conduct entitled to absolute immunity.

Absolute quasi-judicial immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against members of a state nursing board.

Duncan v. MS Board of Nursing · filed 1997-10-28

Duncan argues that ... as a matter of law, the defendants are not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in See O’Neal v. Mississippi Bd. of Nursing, 113 F.3d 62, 66 (5th Cir. 1997).

A judge has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for contacting prosecutors to investigate a disgruntled litigant’s possible obstruction of justice connected to the judge’s adjudicative work.

Barrett v. Nancy I. Harrington, A/K/A Penny Harrington · filed 1997-11-20

We hold that a judge is entitled to absolute immunity when contacting prosecutors to prompt an investigation of conduct by a disgruntled litigant which may constitute obstruction of justice in connection with an action or decision taken or made by the judge in his or her adjudicatory capacity.

Section 1983 does not give a police officer absolute immunity for allegedly helping obtain a child seizure order through misrepresentations when the officer’s actions were neither integral to the judicial process nor merely ministerial.

Malik v. Arapahoe County Department of Social Services · filed 1997-11-26

These actions were neither “integral to the judicial process” nor, as in Valdez, “merely ministerial.”

An officer acting as a de facto bailiff has absolute quasi-judicial immunity from § 1983 liability for carrying out a judge’s specific courtroom orders to handcuff and remove a person.

Martin v. Hendren · filed 1997-11-28

Hendren is thus entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from § 1983 liability for carrying out the judge's orders to handcuff Martin and remove her from the courtroom.

Agency attorneys have absolute prosecutorial immunity from § 1983 damages claims for preparing and filing a disciplinary petition and preparing the case for a hearing on the merits.

Flowers v. Seki · filed 1998-02-13

At the outset, the court finds that it is clear that any work performed by Defendants Seki, Tamamoto, Nakamura, and Nakano in the actual preparation and filing of the initial Petition on December 17, 1993, and the Amended Petition in 1994, is protected by absolute immunity. The actions taken to prepare and file the Petition are closely associated with judicial proceedings, and are the functional equivalent of a prosecutor filing criminal charges against a defendant. Likewise, the activity performed by Defendants in the preparation of the case for a hearing on the merits is also protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 does not afford absolute quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial immunity to parole hearing agents performing administrative duties.

Bennie Brown v. Mike Stoffel Joseph Malcolm · filed 1998-03-02

The function performed by Malcolm is purely administrative and does not implicate any of the concerns for preserving independent decision-making that normally justify quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against New York probation officers are barred by absolute immunity when the officers prepare and furnish presentence reports to courts.

Hili v. Joseph L. Sciarrotta, Dir. Of Probation, Diane Eich, Probation Officer · filed 1998-04-02

The requirements of New York law with respect to the preparation and submission of presentence reports, along with the procedural mechanisms protecting the defendant’s right not to be punished on the basis of inaccurate information in such a report, persuade us that New York probation officers in preparing and furnishing such reports to the courts, like federal probation officers, are entitled to absolute immunity from suits for damages.

A Maryland medical peer reviewer enjoys absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability when the reviewer’s limited investigation directly supports the Board’s decision whether to bring charges.

Ostrzenski v. Seigel · filed 1998-04-09

Admittedly, a Maryland medical peer reviewer performs certain investigatory functions, but those functions are circumscribed and relate directly to the Board’s decision whether to initiate formal charges. The peer reviewer, therefore, is more like a prosecutor reviewing evidence and questioning witnesses in the process of deciding whether to seek an indictment and thus enjoys absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability.

Section 1983 claims against a prosecutor are barred by absolute immunity when based on obtaining arrest warrants or prosecuting criminal charges.

Manetta v. Macomb County Enforcement Team · filed 1998-04-09

Therefore, Kaiser is absolutely immune from the claims of Manet-ta and Swieezkowski to the extent that they rely on his actions of obtaining arrest warrants against them and prosecuting them for extortion.

Parole officers who investigate suspected violations and recommend arrest warrants have qualified, rather than absolute, immunity from § 1983 damages claims.

Scotto v. Almenas · filed 1998-05-05

Almenas's role was investigatory, not prosecutorial. Upon deciding that Scotto had probably violated his parole, Almenas was required to recommend that a warrant issue. Senior parole officer Wegman thereafter made the discretionary decision to issue the warrant and initiate the parole revocation "prosecution." Almenas's role was similar to that of a police officer applying for an arrest warrant, a function for which qualified immunity is sufficient.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for actions involving a search warrant and its execution when those actions prepare for judicial proceedings.

Larry D. Lomaz Pacific Financial Services of America, Inc. v. Hennosy · filed 1998-07-29

We hold that Plough and Myers were protected by absolute immunity in each of their actions having to do with the search warrant and its execution.

Section 1983 affords prosecutors absolute immunity for acts performed in their traditional role as advocates.

Petersen v. Carbon County · filed 1998-08-06

The district court granted these defendants absolute immunity on the basis that their acts were taken in pursuit of their prosecutorial duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). We agree that the actions Mr. Petersen complains of were taken in the defendants' performance of "the traditional functions of an advocate." Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, ----, 118 S.Ct. 502, 510, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). No error occurred.

Section 1983 does not give public officials absolute immunity for alleged actions that are administrative rather than legislative, prosecutorial, or judicial.

El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello · filed 1998-08-28

Therefore, according to the functional analysis required by Clinton v. Jones, none of Defendants’ actions, as alleged by Plaintiffs, were legislative, prosecutorial or judicial in nature, and no Defendant is entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiffs.

Police officers are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims alleging failure to disclose exculpatory evidence directly to the defense.

Jean v. Collins · filed 1998-09-17

Police officers are absolutely immune from suits challenging a failure to disclose evidence directly to the defense.

Section 1983 affords police officers absolute immunity from claims that they failed to disclose exculpatory evidence directly to the defense when performing a prosecutorial function.

Jean v. Collins · filed 1998-09-17

To the extent, therefore, that Jean contends that Collins and Shingleton failed to disclose exculpatory evidence directly to the defense, the police officers are entitled to the same absolute immunity that would be available to prosecutors for execution of the identical function.

A police officer who did not initiate or encourage a prosecution is absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for grand jury testimony.

Cervantes v. Jones · filed 1998-10-14

Under the factual circumstances here, Jones cannot be considered a “complaining witness,” and, therefore, Jones is entitled to absolute immunity for any false statements he made before the grand jury.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to state civil rights officials for quasi-judicial functions, including reasonable cause determinations.

White v. Martin · filed 1998-10-19

Accordingly, we hold that the CHRO defendants are entitled to absolute immunity as to plaintiffs section 1983 against them with respect to their quasi-judicial functions.

In a § 1983 suit, a witness’s grand jury testimony cannot be used as a basis to impose civil liability on that witness.

Mastroianni v. Bowers · filed 1998-11-13

As both Briscoe and Strength instruct, however, we are prohibited from using Yeomans' grand jury testimony as a basis to impose civil liability.

Section 1983 claims may be barred by absolute immunity for prosecutors and grand jury witnesses, or by qualified immunity for government agents.

Mastroianni v. Bowers · filed 1998-11-13

We therefore determine that Bowers, Deering, and Yeomans are entitled to absolute immunity, and Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity, from civil liability for their conduct relative to this case.

Section 1983 damages claims against agency officials are subject to absolute immunity when the officials perform functions analogous to judges or prosecutors.

Romano v. Bible · filed 1999-02-26

Absolute immunity extends to agency officials when they preside over hearings, initiate agency adjudication, or otherwise perform functions analogous to judges and prosecutors.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on public officials for reports and recommendations they prepare for a court at its direction in connection with a judicial proceeding.

Yates v. Cunningham et al. · filed 1999-04-23

Thus, I find that the defendants are absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 for preparing and submitting reports and recommendations in connection with Yates' motion, as they were directed to do so by the Merrimack County Superior Court.

Section 1983 does not give planning board members absolute legislative immunity for an administrative decision concerning a particular subdivision.

Cutting v. Muzzey · filed 1984-01-10

Even if we were willing to apply Lake Country to a more local level, this would not assist appellees, as we are unable to equate their action here with legislative activity.

Prosecutors sued under § 1983 have absolute immunity for conduct within their advocacy role; investigative conduct may fall outside that immunity.

Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering · filed 1999-04-29

In sum, we conclude that the record does not support the proposition that either Deering or Bowers was involved in this case in its investigative stages to the extent that removal of absolute prosecuto-rial immunity is warranted. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision to deny summary judgment based on absolute immunity as to Bowers and Deering.

Section 1983 does not impose civil liability for procuring a witness’s allegedly perjured trial testimony when the witness is absolutely immune for that testimony.

Jones v. Cannon · filed 1999-05-11

Accordingly, we find Defendant Powers has absolute immunity from liability for Jones’s § 1983 claim that Powers suborned perjured testimony from Jones’s cell mate, and is entitled to summary judgment for this claim in Count VII.

Section 1983 claims against civil rights commissioners are barred by absolute quasi-judicial immunity when the commissioners determine whether their agency has jurisdiction over a charge.

Crenshaw v. Berry Baynerd, Alpha Blackburn, David A. Carter · filed 1999-06-14

Here, the Commission members acted in a functionally adjudicatory capacity when they determined that they lacked jurisdiction to review and consider her complaint. ... Since “immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not the person to whom it attaches,” the Commissioners are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.

Absolute prosecutorial immunity bars a § 1983 equal protection claim based on protected prosecutorial acts.

Froelich v. CITY OF NEWTON, KAN. · filed 1999-06-17

The court grants summary judgment on the plaintiffs equal protection claim because the allegedly discriminatory acts were valid uses of prosecutorial discretion and protected by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against Growth Management Hearings Board members are barred by absolute immunity for their adjudicative work.

Buckles v. King County · filed 1999-09-10

We hold that the Board members are entitled to absolute immunity and, therefore, we do not address the Buckles’ arguments regarding qualified immunity and their procedural due process claim against the Board.

Board members whose actions are functionally comparable to those of judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims.

Dunham v. Wadley · filed 1999-11-10

Since the defendants' actions were functionally comparable to those of judges and prosecutors, they are entitled to absolute immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, a prosecutor lacks absolute immunity for investigative conduct and legal advice to police that are not intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal proceeding.

Prince v. Hicks · filed 1999-12-02

Because Prince has alleged that Hicks violated her constitutional rights while engaging in conduct that is not intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal proceeding, Hicks is not entitled to absolute immunity with respect to the claims in ¶ 13 as well as the claims in ¶ 14 relating to the legal advice Hicks allegedly gave defendant Hazelhurst.

Officials whose actions are functionally comparable to those of judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 claims.

Dunham v. Wadley · filed 2000-01-11

Since the defendants' actions were functionally comparable to those of Judges and prosecutors, they are entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not afford absolute immunity for a licensing board investigator’s investigative activities.

Beck v. Texas State Board of Dental Examiners · filed 2000-03-03

Thus, Pitcock’s investigative activities are not covered under absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not grant absolute prosecutorial immunity for investigative acts such as allegedly fabricating evidence.

Cignetti v. Healy · filed 2000-03-21

The defendants, however, do not have absolute immunity for the claim that they fabricated the composite tape evidence.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to educational appeals board members for their adjudicatory review of a hearing officer’s decision.

Doe v. Eagle-Union Community School Corp. · filed 2000-03-30

The defendant members of the BSEA are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in reviewing the findings and conclusions of the IHO.

Section 1983 does not give mayors or building inspectors absolute immunity merely because they exercise discretion; their roles are not functionally comparable to those of judges or prosecutors.

Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim Radin, Inc. v. Village of New Hempstead · filed 2000-04-12

The roles of building inspector and mayor are not functionally comparable to those of judge or prosecutor — and they certainly are not insulated from political influence — and thus the rationale of Butz does not apply.

Absolute immunity bars § 1983 claims against a prosecutor for the challenged conduct in criminal proceedings and against a probation officer for preparing a presentence report.

Overbey v. Roberts · filed 2000-05-12

Because both Douciere and Thurman were entitled to absolute immunity, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Overbey’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous.

Absolute prosecutorial immunity bars § 1983 malicious prosecution claims based on acts within a prosecutor’s advocacy role, regardless of motive.

McKeon v. Daley · filed 2000-05-24

As such, her allegations are predicated on acts clearly within the scope of Daley’s role as a prosecutor and his motives are irrelevant. Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claims in violation of § 1983 must therefore be dismissed on grounds of absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the defendant’s alleged acts were intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

Higgins v. Allison · filed 2000-06-21

Allison is entitled to absolute immunity because each of his alleged acts was intimately associated with the judicial phase of ... the criminal process.

State employees responsible for prosecuting child neglect and delinquency petitions have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims arising from that work.

Kurzawa v. Mueller · filed 1984-03-22

The analysis employed by the Supreme Court in Briscoe, Butz and Imbler compels a conclusion that these defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. The remaining defendants are state employees who are responsible for the prosecution of child neglect and delinquency petitions in the Michigan courts. It is their responsibility, and others in similar positions, to protect the health and well-being of the children of Michigan. They must be able to perform the necessary tasks to achieve this goal without the worry of intimidation and harassment from dissatisfied parents. Accordingly, these defendants, pursuant to Briscoe and its predecessors, are entitled to immunity.

Witnesses have absolute immunity from Section 1983 defamation claims arising from their grand jury or trial testimony.

Cipolla v. County of Rensselaer · filed 2000-09-14

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims for defamation arising out of trial and/or grand jury testimony of Defendants Zwack, Madden, and Cybulski are dismissed because these Defendants are entitled to absolute witness immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a hearing officer for scheduling decisions made in a judicial capacity because the officer has absolute immunity.

Chavez v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2000-10-10

It is well-established that scheduling decisions in proceedings are taken within the adjudicator’s judicial capacity and lie within the realm of judicial discretion; the judge who makes them is therefore entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 affords Texas civil service commissioners absolute immunity for their official adjudicative duties.

Mylett v. Mullican · filed 1993-06-01

We hold that, on balance, absolute immunity best serves the efficacy of the Commission's adjudicatory function.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity to prosecutors who retain evidence after conviction while a direct appeal is pending.

Parkinson v. Cozzolino · filed 2001-01-04

Thus, we hold that absolute immunity shields prosecutors from liability for the retention of evidence after conviction while a direct appeal is pending.

Section 1983 defamation claims based on a witness’s grand jury or trial testimony are barred by absolute witness immunity.

Cipolla v. County of Rensselaer · filed 2001-01-11

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims for defamation arising out of trial and/or grand jury testimony of Zwack, Madden, and Cybulski are dismissed because these Defendants are entitled to absolute witness immunity.

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for performing prosecutorial duties, even if they act in bad faith.

Neville v. Classic Gardens · filed 2001-01-17

Even if Higgins intentionally acted in bad faith, she is still absolutely immune because she was still performing prosecutorial duties.

Absolute witness immunity in a § 1983 action does not shield a police officer’s extrajudicial fabrication of evidence and solicitation of false testimony.

Mitchell v. City of Boston · filed 2001-01-26

Holland’s actions differed from DeMar-co’s in that they were not inextricably tied to his role in the judicial proceedings. ... Under these circumstances, a defendant is not entitled to take cover behind the shield of absolute immunity.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to an official who initiates an administrative enforcement action in a prosecutorial capacity.

Bath Petroleum Storage, Inc. v. Sovas · filed 2001-03-21

The Court holds that defendant Pearson is entitled to absolute immunity for any actions he took in initiating an administrative claim against Plaintiffs. The rationale underpinning this holding rests upon the fact that defendant Pearson’s function in initiating an enforcement action against Plaintiffs for their alleged violation of various provisions of New York’s Environmental Conservation Law is akin to that of a prosecutor.

Government attorneys are absolutely immune from damages under Section 1983 for initiating and prosecuting child neglect actions.

Gray, William v. Poole, Theisha · filed 2001-03-27

We conclude that attorneys for the District of Columbia are absolutely immune from damages under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 for their conduct in initiating and prosecuting child neglect ac- tions.

A child welfare caseworker has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for filing a dependency petition, even if she intentionally misrepresents its factual basis.

Johnson v. Sackett · filed 2001-03-28

Thus, concerning the federal claim alleged under § 1983, we hold that Ms. Sackett is entitled to absolute immunity for filing the dependency petition involving Zachary, even if she intentionally misrepresented the factual basis for dependency in the petition.

Section 1983 provides no damages remedy against a police officer for testimony at a preliminary hearing because absolute witness immunity applies.

Scarbrough v. Bryant Myles, Jr. · filed 2001-03-29

Because a preliminary hearing is a judicial proceeding, Myles enjoys absolute immunity for civil liability damages resulting from his testimony.

Section 1983 affords a police officer absolute immunity from damages for testimony at a state preliminary hearing.

Tammy D. Scarbrough, Carol C. Davis v. Bryant Myles, Jr., Chuck Hall · filed 2001-03-29

Because a preliminary hearing is a judicial proceeding, Myles enjoys absolute immunity from civil liability damages resulting from his testimony.

Absolute immunity can bar a Section 1983 claim.

Goldwater v. State of Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 2001-05-30

We affirm the district court’s order of dismissal on absolute immunity grounds for the reasons stated in the district court’s order filed on January 20, 2000.

Judges have absolute immunity for conduct within their judicial capacity, and prosecutors have absolute immunity for conduct within their duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution.

Jackson v. Mulroy · filed 2001-06-20

We agree with the district court that all of the conduct in which Mulroy, Fitzpatrick and Cambareri are alleged to have engaged fell within the scope of these protections, and therefore affirm the dismissal of the complaint as against these defendants.

A judge has absolute judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim for monetary damages arising from judicial acts.

Stover v. Mackie · filed 2001-06-20

First, Stover’s claim for monetary damages against the defendant clearly fails to state a claim due to absolute judicial immunity.

Absolute immunity of parole board members does not extend to suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief under § 1983.

Stevenson v. LA Board of Parole · filed 2001-07-13

Stevenson is correct that absolute immunity does not extend to suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides no liability against a prosecutor for post-conviction conduct performed as an advocate for the state.

Younce v. Hurst · filed 2001-08-06

As Defendant was still acting as an advocate for the State in requesting and submitting the order at issue to Judge Nelson, Defendant is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against election board members in their individual capacities are barred by quasi-judicial absolute immunity when the members adjudicate objections to nomination petitions.

Tobin for Governor v. Illinois State Board of Elections · filed 2001-10-05

Tobin for Governor may not sue the members of the ISBE in their individual capacities because they are entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity from § 1983 liability depends on whether the defendant’s role is functionally comparable to that of a judge, prosecutor, or witness.

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital · filed 2001-10-22

The essential inquiry is, therefore, whether or not the roles of the defendants were “functionally comparable” to that of a judge, prosecutor or witness entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state agency officials are barred by absolute immunity when the officials perform functions comparable to those of judges or prosecutors.

Tretiak v. Del Papa · filed 2001-11-13

The district court also properly dismissed Tretiak’s claim based upon the draft proposed order because absolute immunity protects state agency officials who are performing functions comparable to either judges or prosecutors.

Section 1983 claims against a prosecutor and grand jury foreman are barred by absolute immunity for acts connected with an indictment and prosecution.

Walker v. Skeen · filed 2001-12-13

Walker’s claims against the prosecutor and the grand jury foreman were properly dismissed based on absolute immunity because he is challenging acts performed in connection with his indictment and prosecution.

Officials are absolutely immune from section 1983 suits for quasi-judicial permitting decisions.

Diva's, Inc. v. City of Bangor · filed 2001-12-20

Because the decision was a quasi-judicial act, therefore, the individual actors are absolutely immune from suit under section 1983.

Section 1983 claims cannot proceed against defendants who are absolutely immune.

Isaac v. Dormire · filed 2001-12-26

After careful review we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing portions of Mr. Isaac’s complaint under section 1915(e), because he asserted claims against parties who are absolutely immune; he did not show that he had a protected liberty interest in avoiding placement in administrative segregation, and thus cannot complain of procedural deficiencies in connection with his placement there; his access-to-the-court claims failed for lack of a showing of actual prejudice; and his conspiracy claim was conclusory.

A prosecutor who personally swears to facts supporting a bail revocation motion is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from a § 1983 damages claim for that conduct.

Cruz v. Kauai County Melvin K. Soong, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Kauai · filed 2002-02-06

In this case, Prosecutor Soong is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for his conduct in swearing to facts in support of the bail revocation motion.

Absolute immunity bars Section 1983 claims against protected defendants.

Yellen v. Alameida · filed 2002-03-19

The district court properly dismissed claims against defendants Reynaga and Yew on the grounds of absolute immunity.

A court clerk sued under Section 1983 has absolute immunity for delegated court-security duties that are integral to the judicial process.

Bell v. Manspeaker · filed 2002-04-10

Because the power to control court security is essential to the court’s dispute resolution function, Mr. Manspeaker is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions taken pursuant to that function.

A court clerk who is absolutely immune cannot be held liable for damages under Section 1983.

Dunlap v. Fulghum · filed 2002-05-01

This complaint was properly dismissed as frivolous, as it lacked any arguable basis in law. ... The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) because the defendant court clerk is absolutely immune from claims for damages.

Child services workers have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for conduct connected with foster placement during ongoing child dependency proceedings, including alleged intentional misconduct.

Miller v. Gammie · filed 2002-06-06

The claims against Gammie in the complaint at issue all allege misconduct (failure to disclose, concealment of, or misrepresentation of Earl’s sexual abuse history) in connection with Earl’s placement with the Roes. Accordingly, they are barred by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against child services workers are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct is connected with and incident to ongoing child dependency proceedings.

Miller v. Gammie · filed 2002-06-06

We therefore conclude, as we must, that "[w]hether their immunity is characterized as quasi-prosecutorial or as quasijudicial," because Gammie's and Zito's challenged activities "were taken in connection with, and incident to, ongoing child dependency proceedings[,]" they "are entitled to absolute immunity." Babcock, 884 F.2d at 503.

State attorneys are not absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for giving legal advice before a judicial proceeding when that advice is neither a traditional prosecutorial function nor closely associated with the judicial process.

Blouin v. Spitzer · filed 2002-07-22

Additionally, defendants initial actions — providing legal advice to University Hospital — are neither part of a prosecutor’s traditional functions nor are they closely associated with the judicial process. Although defendants subsequent actions were arguably related to the judicial process, they did not have the requisite intimate association necessary for a finding of absolute immunity. Therefore, the court finds that defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity in this instance.

Absolute immunity bars § 1983 claims against defendants it protects.

DeNardo v. Smith · filed 2002-07-30

Because DeNardo’s claims against defendants Richard, Walker, Clark-Weeks, and Mathis are barred by absolute immunity, summary judgment was proper.

Parole officials have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from a parole revocation proceeding.

Willoughby v. Dennison · filed 2002-08-19

Because Willoughby’s claims against Saxon, Haggerty, and Dennison arose from his parole revocation proceeding, they were entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims are barred by absolute immunity when a parole administrator performs a quasi-judicial function in deciding a parole revocation appeal.

Smith v. Schwarz · filed 2002-09-13

Because Schwarz was performing a quasi-judicial function when he decided the appeal, he is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not confer absolute immunity on hospital peer-review committees merely because a state statute gives them a role in regulating medicine.

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital · filed 2002-11-19

The statute clearly expresses the need for peer review and its importance to the regulation of the practice of medicine, as Appellants argue, but we conclude that the statute is insufficient to provide absolute immunity in a federal § 1983 action.

A parole officer sued under § 1983 does not receive absolute immunity for alleged conduct beyond preparing a court-directed presentence report.

McCammon v. Youngblood · filed 2002-11-22

Youngblood has not directed this court to any case that has extended that absolute immunity to fact situations in which a parole officer's actions went beyond submitting, "at the direction of [a] court," a presentence report. ... Given the allegations against Youngblood contained in McCammon's complaint and the foregoing authority, we must conclude that Youngblood is not entitled to absolute immunity under the authority of Hughes v. Chesser or Spaulding v. Nielsen .

Section 1983 absolute witness immunity does not cover an expert’s report submitted at an ex parte probable cause hearing.

Keko v. Hingle · filed 2003-01-08

We decline to extend absolute witness immunity into an arena where the Supreme Court has not found factual testimony to justify such heightened protection.

Section 1983 does not give an expert witness absolute immunity for a report submitted at an ex parte probable cause hearing.

Keko v. Hingle · filed 2003-01-28

We decline to extend absolute witness immunity into an arena where the Supreme Court has not found factual testimony to justify such heightened protection.

Section 1983 does not give officers absolute immunity for concealing exculpatory evidence.

Newsome, James v. McCabe, Helen · filed 2003-02-10

Secreting evidence is not covered by absolute immunity.

Police officers sued under § 1983 are not absolutely immune from liability for concealing exculpatory evidence about eyewitness identifications.

Newsome v. Helen McCabe (As Personal Representative of the Estate of John McCabe Raymond McNally and City of Chica · filed 2003-02-10

It is also why the constitutional violation justifying an award of damages is not the conduct of the lineups but the concealment of evidence about them. Secreting evidence is not covered by absolute immunity.

State officials investigating unauthorized practice of law may have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for the investigation and related subpoenas.

McCormick v. City of Lawrence, Kansas · filed 2003-03-07

Accordingly, the court concludes that Shelly R. Welch and David L. Harder are entitled to absolute immunity for their investigation of Mr. McCormick and their decision to subpoena Merrily Coburn in conjunction with that investigation.

Section 1983 personal-capacity claims against state chiropractic board officials are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged disciplinary proceedings have judicial safeguards and independent decision-makers.

Mason v. Arizona · filed 2003-03-28

The Board’s administrative enforcement proceedings satisfy the requirements of Butz, thereby qualifying the State Defendants for absolute immunity. Consequently, Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against them in their personal capacities fail.

Section 1983 claims against a state attorney general are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct is advocacy in state court.

Brown v. State of Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development · filed 2003-04-02

As the Attorney General was an “advocate” for the state by defending the state in Brown’s civil action in state court, the Attorney General’s actions were “intimately associated with the judicial phase” of the civil process. Thus, the Attorney General is entitled to absolute immunity in Brown’s civil rights action.

Section 1983 affords officers absolute quasi-judicial immunity for acts prescribed by a facially valid court order.

Penn v. Landis · filed 2003-04-03

Accordingly, we conclude that because the order was facially valid, the defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for all acts prescribed by the order.

Section 1983 does not give a district attorney’s office absolute immunity for administrative failures to secure a timely hearing.

King v. Timmoney · filed 2003-04-29

Here, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the District Attorney’s office failed to take the necessary steps in securing a timely hearing date, such allegations are administrative in nature and not within the district attorney’s role as advocate for the state. We will not extend absolute immunity to cover these administrative actions.

A claim that Michigan prison hearing officers are not impartial does not defeat their absolute immunity from § 1983 suits.

Fitts v. Abramajtys · filed 2003-05-02

The next claim, that hearing officers in Michigan prisons are not impartial and are therefore not entitled to absolute immunity, has also been previously rejected by this court.

Defendants in a § 1983 suit must show entitlement to absolute or qualified immunity to obtain dismissal on those grounds.

Gilchrist v. Citty · filed 2003-06-25

Although we make no comment on the ultimate merit of Gilchrist’s case, defendants have not shown entitlement to absolute or qualified immunity at this point in the litigation.

Section 1983 does not give an investigator absolute witness immunity for testimony as a complaining witness at an ex parte warrant proceeding.

Vakilian v. Shaw · filed 2003-07-02

In this case, however, Shaw testified at an ex parte proceeding where his actions were that of a “complaining witness” rather than a “testifying witness.” Because a complaining witness is not protected by absolute immunity, neither is Shaw.

Section 1983 damages claims against a parole board chair for failing to timely schedule a parole revocation hearing are barred by absolute immunity when scheduling is part of the judicial function.

Pate v. United States · filed 2003-07-23

Because the Court concludes that defendant Quick would be entitled to absolute immunity for her alleged failure to timely schedule plaintiffs parole revocation hearing, and because plaintiff has failed to specifically challenge defendant Quick’s arguments in favor of absolute immunity, the Court concludes that defendant Quick’s motion for dismissal should be granted.

An investigator who testifies as a complaining witness at an ex parte arrest-warrant proceeding lacks absolute immunity from a § 1983 damages claim.

Vakilian v. Shaw · filed 2003-08-26

In this case, however, Shaw testified at an ex parte proceeding where his actions were that of a "complaining witness" rather than a "testifying witness." Because a complaining witness is not protected by absolute immunity, neither is Shaw.

Parole officials who participate in a parole revocation decision have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims.

Hunter v. Rodriguez · filed 2003-09-05

To the extent that Rodriguez participated in the revocation decision, the district court also correctly concluded that Rodriguez is also entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 bars personal-capacity damages claims against Connecticut police officers for acts related to their statutory bail-setting function because they have absolute judicial immunity.

Clynch v. Chapman · filed 2003-09-30

This claim must be dismissed because Chapman and Froschino are absolutely immune from personal-capacity suits for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions related to performing the bail setting function assigned to Connecticut police officers under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 54-63c.

Section 1983 provides absolute prosecutorial immunity for a required notice that begins civil enforcement proceedings when sending it is part of the prosecutor’s advocacy role.

Smith, Paul v. Power, L. Patrick · filed 2003-10-06

Sending the 15-day notice is such a preliminary act for which Power is absolutely immune.

Absolute prosecutorial immunity protects a city attorney who sends a required notice as a preliminary step toward civil enforcement proceedings.

Paul Smith and Gloria Smith v. Power · filed 2003-10-06

Sending the 15-day notice is such a preliminary act for which Power is absolutely immune.

Section 1983 damages claims against police officers for testimony at criminal proceedings or judicial license suspension hearings are barred by absolute witness immunity.

Ankele v. Hambrick · filed 2003-10-08

To the extent Ankele seeks damages arising from Hambrick's testimony at his preliminary hearing, trial, or license suspension proceeding, Hambrick is entitled to absolute immunity, and thus summary judgment is appropriate. It is well settled that police officers are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for allegedly giving perjured testimony at a criminal trial.

Section 1983 claims against police review board members in their individual capacities are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged decision is adjudicatory in nature.

Doubet v. Eckelberg · filed 2003-11-18

We first note that the PRB members, whose decision not to provide full hearings was adjudicatory in nature, are absolutely immune from suit in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 gives a prosecutor absolute immunity from individual-capacity damages claims for conduct connected to initiating and presenting the State’s case, including conduct related to pre-trial confinement.

Reid v. Schuman · filed 2003-12-12

Actions related to Reid’s pre-trial confinement are plainly part of the initiation and presentation of the State’s case. ... Schuman is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from suit in her individual capacity and the district court correctly dismissed this claim.

Section 1983 claims for authorized prosecutorial advocacy, including charging decisions and presenting evidence to a grand jury, are barred by absolute immunity regardless of political motive.

Bernard v. County of Suffolk · filed 2004-01-30

Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that, regardless of defendants' political motives, absolute immunity shields them from suit pursuant to § 1983 for their alleged malicious or selective prosecution of plaintiffs, as well as for any misconduct in the presentation of evidence to the grand juries that returned the challenged indictments against plaintiffs.

Section 1983 does not give state attorneys absolute immunity for directing a patient's medical care when they show no historical or common-law basis for that immunity.

Blouin v. Spitzer · filed 2004-02-02

As previously observed, Blouin seeks to hold the AG's office liable for intervening into Pouliot's medical care by directing the administration of invasive procedures. Spitzer and Thurlow have not carried their burden of identifying any historical or common-law support for an extension of absolute immunity to such actions. As noted, this absence of support is dispositive.

State attorneys seeking absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim must show independent historical support when their challenged conduct is distinct from prosecutorial or adversarial functions.

Blouin ex rel. Estate of Pouliot v. Spitzer · filed 2004-02-02

In short, Spitzer and Thurlow’s challenged actions-even after state-court proceedings commenced-were sufficiently distinct from traditional prosecutorial or even adversarial functions that they are required to show independent historical support for their entitlement to absolute immunity. But they have not done so.

Parole officers, supervisors and parole board officials have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims concerning parole conditions.

Miles v. Everette · filed 2004-02-17

His claims against the parole officers, supervisors and officials of the Parole Board are barred under the doctrine of absolute immunity.

State alcohol control commissioners and hearing officers have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for acts performed in their adjudicatory capacities.

Hamm v. Yeatts · filed 1979-09-25

Scrutiny of the functions and duties of the Members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and those designated by the Commission to conduct hearings leads this court to the conclusion that the grant of absolute immunity, when they are performing in their adjudicatory capacities, is essential for the conduct of their affairs.

Section 1983 damages claims against members of a court’s unauthorized practice committee are barred by absolute immunity when the members exercise delegated judicial authority.

Simons v. Bellinger · filed 1980-01-04

In functioning as it did the Committee members were acting in a judicial capacity and are entitled to absolute immunity.

Police commissioners have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from reports and supporting statements made in their official capacity.

Algarin v. Town of Wallkill · filed 2004-04-05

Pursuant to this doctrine, Defendants enjoy absolute immunity from suit resulting from the report they compiled, and statements they made in support thereof, in their capacity as police commissioners.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to medical board officials and counsel for acts closely tied to their judicial or prosecutorial functions.

Olsen v. Idaho State Board Of Medicine · filed 2004-04-07

After reviewing Idaho's administrative and procedural scheme for the regulation of medical practitioners in light of the Butz factors, we conclude that the Board, the BOPD, its members, professional staff and counsel function in a sufficiently judicial and prosecutorial capacity to entitle them to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 absolute immunity protects medical board officials only for acts that are judicial or closely associated with the judicial process.

Olsen v. Idaho State Board of Medicine · filed 2004-04-07

Our conclusion that appellees’ functions are comparable to those of judges and prosecutors, and accorded absolute immunity applies only to those actions which are judicial or closely associated with the judicial process.

Section 1983 does not give a prosecutor absolute immunity for acting as a complaining witness.

McCormick v. City of Lawrence · filed 2004-04-26

Ms. Willoughby was acting as a complaining witness. The district court properly denied Ms. Willoughby absolute immunity.

Prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity cannot be held liable under § 1983.

Jackson v. Miller · filed 2004-05-20

Accordingly, we affirm on the district court’s reasoning that Defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 provides a civil damages remedy against persons who, under color of state law, deprive someone of federal rights.

Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners · filed 1987-07-07

We conclude that under the Butz court rationale, the defendant Board members, who performed statutory functions both adjudicatory and prosecutorial in nature, are entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not afford an agency attorney absolute prosecutorial immunity for applying for an administrative search warrant while acting in an investigative capacity.

Eden v. Voss · filed 2004-07-09

We therefore hold that absolute immunity is unavailable to Ms. Ortiz’s activity of applying for an administrative search warrant, because she was acting in an investigative and not a prosecutorial capacity at the time of application.

An administrative law judge has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim based on actions taken while presiding over an administrative proceeding.

Bloom v. NEW YORK STATE COM'R OF HEALTH · filed 2004-07-28

Hence, in his role as administrative law judge, Defendant Bermas is entitled to absolute immunity from any Section 1983 civil action based on his actions during those proceedings.

Probation officers have absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability for preparing and filing petitions to revoke probation.

DeSilva v. Baker · filed 2004-09-07

Applying the functional test, we hold that a probation officer’s duty to prepare and file the necessary papers with the court to revoke probation entitles him to absolute immunity for that specific conduct.

Section 1983 does not provide absolute immunity for acquiring or manufacturing evidence as part of an investigative function.

Genzler v. Longanbach · filed 2004-09-27

We conclude from the foregoing that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that, during his first meeting with Flanders, O’Brien was, like the prosecutor in Moore, engaged in the process of “acquiring” or manufacturing evidence during performance of an investigative function, rather than engaged in quasi-judicial advocacy. At this stage of the proceedings, O’Brien is therefore unprotected by absolute immunity.

Parole officers are not absolutely immune from § 1983 claims arising from their investigation of suspected parole violations.

Swift v. State of California Department of Corrections Keith Tandy, and Steve Christian Maritza Rodriguez · filed 2004-10-05

Given that prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity when performing investigatory or law enforcement functions, we hold that parole officers cannot be entitled to absolute immunity when performing the same functions.

State assistant attorneys general representing defendants in a civil action may be absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims arising from that representation.

Jacobs v. Stornelli · filed 2004-10-29

Jacobs also contends that two New York assistant attorneys general representing the defendants in Jacobs’s civil state court action violated Jacobs’s constitutional rights. The district court properly dismissed these claims on the ground of absolute immunity.

Police officers acting as witnesses have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims based on their testimony.

Averhart v. City of Chicago · filed 2004-11-02

The district court, moreover, properly dismissed the claim against Officer Smith based on his alleged perjury. Police officers acting as witnesses “have absolute immunity from a damages suit based on their testimony.” ... The district court, therefore, correctly ruled that absolute immunity was one basis for dismissing the perjury claim against Officer Smith.

Individual child welfare workers have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims arising from their preparation and initiation of dependency proceedings.

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services · filed 2004-11-18

Therefore, accepting as true and construing the facts in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court finds that the individually named BCCYS Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their alleged actions contained in Counts I through VI and, therefore, Counts I through VI are dismissed as to the individual BCCYS Defendants but remain as to Defendant-BCCYS.

Inmate complaint reviewers have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability when they dismiss complaints for procedural deficiencies or lack of merit.

Koutnik v. Brown · filed 2004-12-30

When inmate complaint review personnel reject inmate complaints for procedural deficiencies or dismiss them as unmeritorious, they perform an adjudicatory function and therefore, are entitled to absolute immunity for those acts.

Participants in a local public hospital’s peer review process lack absolute immunity from § 1983 liability when the process lacks the characteristics of a judicial body.

Braswell v. Haywood Regional Medical Center · filed 2005-01-14

Examining the Cleavinger factors with regard to the facts as alleged by the Plaintiff in his amended complaint, the Court finds the peer review process provided by the Defendant Hospital lacks important characteristics found in judicial bodies to be entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a government attorney protected by absolute immunity for advocacy functions closely associated with judicial proceedings.

Mangiafico v. Blumenthal · filed 2005-03-02

The Court concludes that the Attorney General is entitled to absolute immunity on such a claim. Therefore, the Court dismisses Captain Mangiafico’s § 1983 claim against the Attorney General.

Section 1983 claims are barred when officials have absolute immunity for judicial determinations.

Nwachukwu v. Rooney · filed 2005-03-07

The court also grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the defendants are entitled to absolute immunity with respect to their determinations, which are judicial in nature.

Zoning officials sued in their official capacities, zoning boards, and townships are not entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 claims.

Lonzetta Trucking & Excavating Co. v. Schan · filed 2005-03-31

However, the zoning officials in their official capacities, the Hazle Township Zoning Board, and the Hazle Township are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Parole board members have absolute immunity from damages claims under § 1983 for both adjudicatory and administrative activities.

Jackson v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board · filed 1987-03-19

Board members enjoy an absolute immunity from damage claims, not only for exercise of their adjudicatory functions but for their administrative activities as well.

Section 1983 claims for conspiracy to commit perjury are barred by absolute witness immunity.

Mowbray v. Cameron County, TX · filed 2001-12-06

Accordingly, we con- clude that absolute witness immunity bars § 1983 suits for conspiracy to commit perjury.

Probation officers who prepare the challenged report are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from § 1983 damages claims.

Boyce v. County of Maricopa · filed 2005-08-15

The district court properly concluded that the probation officer defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity against damages claims.

Absolute immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a mental health professional for his role in a patient’s continued commitment.

Litmon v. Mayberg · filed 2005-08-15

Although Litmon’s claims against Thies were not time-barred, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Thies was entitled to absolute immunity for his role in Litmon’s continued commitment.

Parole officers do not receive absolute judicial immunity from a Section 1983 claim for routine duties supervising a parolee.

Dawson v. Newman · filed 2005-08-18

The allegations against the parole officials in this case do not involve acts that are analogous to those performed by judges. Weist, Fafata, and Hegewald allegedly ignored Dawson's protests and refused to investigate his claim of entitlement to release from parole in the ordinary course of performing their everyday duties as parole officials. They offer no precedent for the proposition that they should be entitled to absolute immunity for performing their day-to-day duties in the supervision of a parolee. We decline to extend absolute judicial immunity to the circumstances presented here.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a witness for testimony given in arbitration proceedings that are functionally equivalent to judicial proceedings.

Rolon v. Henneman · filed 2005-09-28

Therefore, the Court finds that absolute immunity attaches to Henneman’s testimony at the arbitration proceedings, precluding liability under § 1983.

Social workers sued under § 1983 have absolute immunity for initiating or maintaining child welfare judicial proceedings.

Abdouch v. Burger · filed 2005-10-20

As a final matter, we note that the district court correctly applied absolute immunity to shield the defendants from liability for initiating or maintaining judicial proceedings.

Section 1983 provides no damages remedy against judges for judicial conduct or prosecutors acting as advocates for the State because they have absolute immunity.

Franklin, Clarence v. City of South Bend · filed 2005-11-02

We further note, as the district court explained, that all of the judges and prosecutors named as defendants in this case are entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against parole board members are barred by absolute immunity when the members act within their authority in deciding parole and reinstating a suspended sentence.

Figg v. Duane Russell Mary Lou Jorgensen Robert Hofer Brent Walker Brenda Hyde J. Does, 1-10 · filed 2006-01-05

Thus, under our holding in Patterson, the Parole Board’s actions regarding Figg’s parole and suspended sentence are entitled to absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity does not justify dismissing a § 1983 complaint against all parole board defendants when the complaint does not establish that each is entitled to it.

Bautista v. Alameida · filed 2006-02-22

Moreover, it is not clear from the complaint that all parole board defendants are entitled to absolute immunity.

State bar agents acting as agents of a state supreme court are entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Carroll v. Paul A. Gross, Sr., Bette Ellen Quial, Patricia A. Seitz · filed 1993-02-25

But the district court determined from the complaint that defendants were acting as agents of the Florida Supreme Court. ... As such, defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.