42 U.S.C. § 1983

A city attorney is absolutely immune from a Section 1983 claim for conduct integral to the judicial process.

Bobbie Parette etc. v. Virden · filed 2006-04-03

With respect to the due process and RICO claims, we hold upon de novo review that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, it cannot genuinely be disputed that City Attorney Virden was merely performing duties that were integrally a part of the judicial process when he engaged in the challenged conduct, and he is therefore entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to a prison disciplinary official whose role in the proceeding is akin to that of a judge.

Hameed v. Mann · filed 1994-04-29

Further, defendant Selsky was dismissed from the case because the court concluded that his involvement in the administrative disciplinary process utilized throughout the New York State prison system as applied to the plaintiff warranted a decision that he be absolutely immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This was because defendant Selsky’s involvement in this case was akin to that of a judge who is protected by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against administrative hearing officers and prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when they act in quasi-judicial or prosecutorial functions.

Guttman v. Khalsa · filed 2006-04-19

Guttman claims that both violated Title II of the ADA and § 1983. ... Parsons and Khalsa were acting in their quasi-judicial and prosecutorial functions and are hence entitled to absolute immunity from this suit.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on police officers for allegedly perjurious testimony because they have absolute immunity.

Propes v. Wolf · filed 2006-05-02

Police officers are absolutely immune from liability for their allegedly perjurious testimony.

State prosecutors and a state court judge may be entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Robinson v. USA · filed 2006-06-15

The district court also properly determined that the numerous state prosecutors and the state court judge named as defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.

The prosecutors and probation officers in this § 1983 suit were absolutely immune for the official acts challenged in the complaint.

Corley v. City of Bellevue · filed 2006-08-01

The district court properly determined that defendants Irwin, Shah, Sherwood and Leadbetter were absolutely immune for actions taken within the scope of their official duties.

Connecticut probation officers have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims arising from their preparation and submission of presentence reports.

Peay v. Carl Ajello, Johanna Colon, C/o William O'COnnOr · filed 2006-11-16

In light of the role Connecticut law assigns to presentence reports in aid of a judicial function and the safeguards in place to protect a defendant’s right to be sentenced based on accurate information, we hold that absolute immunity from claims for damages applies to Connecticut probation officers in the preparation and submission of presentence reports.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to a state attorney general acting as the state’s advocate when deciding whether to defend a state employee in litigation.

Mangiafico v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, John Armstrong, and Theresa Lantz, Docket No. 05-5465-Cv · filed 2006-12-19

It is apparent to us that in deciding not to commit the state’s financial and legal resources to Mangiafico’s defense, Blumenthal served as an advocate for the state and performed functions analogous to those of agency officials or prosecutors and other government attorneys whose decisions to commit or not commit the state are protected by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against officials performing quasi-judicial functions may be barred by absolute immunity when the disciplinary process has adequate safeguards.

Kerrey Buser, M.D. v. Richard Raymond etc. · filed 2007-02-07

Because a majority of the absolute immunity factors weigh in favor of granting Dr. Raymond absolute immunity, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing Dr. Buser's § 1983 action based upon absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against parole board members are barred by absolute immunity for decisions about suspended sentences made within their official powers.

Cliff Ambrose v. Schultz · filed 2007-02-07

Although Ambrose’s claim challenging the revocation of his suspended sentence was not based on a decision regarding parole per se, absolute immunity still attached to the parole board members’ relevant decisions because they were acting within their powers and in their official capacities.

Section 1983 defendants are absolutely immune for actions related to prosecuting a dependency hearing.

Palmer v. Riverside County · filed 2007-03-21

The district court properly concluded that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for actions related to the prosecution of the April 24, 2002 dependency hearing.

A prosecutor’s notary who allegedly prepares and notarizes a knowingly false affidavit before probable cause exists acts as an investigator and is not entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Van Buren v. Cave · filed 2007-05-25

Here, although the time-line is much shorter, probable cause clearly did not exist before Blackwell approached Murphy to begin the process of initiating proceedings against Van Burén. Accordingly, Murphy was acting as an investigator, not an advocate, when she prepared and notarized Blackwell’s affidavit, and the district court therefore erred in dismissing her as a defendant under Rule 12(b)(6) on grounds of absolute immunity.

Parole officials are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for imposing conditions of parole.

Woods v. Chapman · filed 2007-06-07

We need not decide whether particular conditions imposed on Woods were unlawful, because imposing those conditions was with- in the category of actions for which parole officials are absolute- ly immune from suits for damages.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to state securities officials for prosecutorial or adjudicative acts in issuing an emergency cease and desist order.

Disraeli v. Rotunda · filed 2007-06-13

More specifically, by applying the Butz factors we hold that the district court correctly granted absolute immunity to the defendants.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to state securities officials for prosecutorial or adjudicative acts in drafting and issuing an emergency cease and desist order when the Butz factors support immunity.

No. 05-51418 · filed 2007-06-13

It is clear from the facts that the actions of the three named defendants in drafting and issuing the emergency order were prosecutorial or adjudicative in nature and were "at the heart of the adjudicative process" established by the Texas State Securities Board. See Beck, 204 F.3d at 637. More specifically, by applying the Butz factors we hold that the district court correctly granted absolute immunity to the defendants.

Police officers setting bail pursuant to Connecticut law have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims because setting bail is a judicial function.

Walczyk v. Rio · filed 2007-08-01

Following Root, we now hold what the citations to Sanchez and Clynch implied: police officers setting bail under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-63c(a) are engaged in a judicial function that affords them absolute immunity.

Absolute prosecutorial immunity from a § 1983 claim does not cover alleged suborning of perjury and conspiracy to destroy exculpatory evidence when the acts are investigative.

Khanna v. State Bar of California · filed 2007-09-10

Taking all allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all inferences from the complaint in Mr. Khanna’s favor, ... the Court concludes that the alleged acts of suborning perjury and conspiring to destroy exculpatory evidence are not protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against parole board members for performing their duties are barred by absolute immunity.

Torres v. Costa · filed 2007-09-27

The district court properly dismissed Torres’ action because Costa was absolutely immune from suit.

A parole officer who arrests a parolee for a parole violation is not entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim.

White v. Cunningham · filed 2007-12-19

When arresting Decedent for a parole violation, Cunningham performed duties similar to those of a police officer. Cunningham is not entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide absolute immunity to a prosecutor who directs police to make an arrest while acting in an administrative or investigative capacity.

Harris v. Bornhorst · filed 2008-01-14

Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that Spies was acting in an administrative or investigative capacity and is, therefore, not entitled to absolute immunity.

Prosecutors are not absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims for investigative conduct after the relevant criminal litigation has ended.

Warney v. City of Rochester · filed 2008-02-11

Because the relevant litigation was long over by the time the exculpatory evidence was obtained, and given the transparently investigative nature of the prosecutors’ acts in submitting the evidence for DNA testing and fingerprint analysis, I find that the prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity for that conduct.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to a witness testifying in a disciplinary arbitration whose procedures sufficiently mirror a judicial proceeding.

Rolon v. Henneman · filed 2008-02-25

Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Briscoe, we therefore conclude that because the nature of this arbitration was materially indistinguishable to that of formal judicial proceedings, and because Hen-neman performed the same function as his judicial witness counterpart, absolute immunity should attach to Henneman as a testifying witness at the arbitration hearings.

Witnesses in police disciplinary arbitrations with safeguards comparable to judicial proceedings have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for their testimony.

Rolon v. Henneman · filed 2008-02-25

We hold that testifying witnesses in police disciplinary hearings of the type at issue here have absolute immunity from suit for their testimony.

Section 1983 absolute immunity protects town counsel and his law firm for prosecuting municipal civil litigation, even when counsel serves on a contract basis.

SBT HOLDINGS, LLC v. Town of Westminster · filed 2008-03-25

However, the fact that attorney Seewald was town counsel on a contract basis does not vitiate his absolute immunity. ... Accordingly, attorney Seewald, and therefore his law firm SJS, is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 permits redress for rights deprivations under color of state law, subject to absolute immunity for adjudicatory functions.

Brown v. DeBruhl · filed 1979-01-19

The issue in this case is whether the Commissioners, in making a decision to deny a liquor license, are to be accorded judicial immunity for purposes of an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 and 1983. ... Therefore, defendants Pratt, Ingram, and Lowder are cloaked with the shield of absolute immunity for performing adjudicatory functions as Commissioners of the South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission.

Section 1983 does not provide absolute immunity from damages to an attorney who exercises no quasi-judicial authority and engages in no prosecutorial activities.

Smith v. Montgomery County, Md. · filed 1983-10-26

However, because McGuckian does not exercise any quasi-judicial authority nor is he engaged in any prosecutorial activities, he is not clothed with absolute immunity under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against bar character and fitness committee members for investigating an applicant’s fitness and making recommendations, because those functions carry absolute immunity.

Lawrence v. Welch · filed 2008-06-03

We conclude that the district court properly found that these three defendants, as members of the State Bar of Michigan’s Character and Fitness Committee—and thus agents of the Board of Law Examiners and the Michigan Supreme Court—are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in investigating Lawrence’s character and fitness to practice law and in making recommendations about the same.

Section 1983 damages claims against bar character and fitness committee members are barred by absolute immunity when the members investigate an applicant and recommend whether the applicant is fit to practice law.

Lawrence v. Welch · filed 2008-06-03

The reasoning of the above cases makes clear that, in conducting the character and fitness examination which is integral to the process of determining whether an applicant is fit to practice law, these individual defendants, acting under the authority of the Michigan Supreme Court, were performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function for which they are entitled to absolute immunity.

State parole board members are immune from § 1983 suits arising from decisions to grant, deny, or revoke parole.

Toliver v. Powers · filed 2008-11-05

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Toliver’s claims against members of the state parole board because those defendants are immune from suit.

Police investigators lack absolute immunity from § 1983 liability when they are not performing an advocate’s functions.

Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2008-12-08

Because they were not acting as prosecutors, or even directly assisting Butterworth in the presentation of evidence, they were not “performing the traditional functions of an advocate.” ... Their claim of absolute immunity accordingly is rejected.

Police investigators sued under § 1983 lack absolute immunity for withholding exculpatory evidence when their role is investigative rather than advocacy.

Tennison v. Sanders · filed 2008-12-08

Their claim of absolute immunity accordingly is rejected. Even if the Ricard confession was obtained by Lewis and Gittens, rather than Sanders and Hen- drix, this does not transform the Inspectors’ role into that of an advocate, rather than that of an investigator.

Absolute witness immunity under § 1983 does not cover a medical examiner’s nontestimonial pretrial reevaluation and disclosure of an opinion to a prosecutor.

Lacy v. County of Maricopa · filed 2008-12-24

Here, it is undisputed that Keen’s reevaluation and disclosure of his revised opinion to the prosecutor was a non-testimonial pretrial act. Thus, it was not covered by the immunity extended to witnesses at trial.

In §1983 suits, supervisory prosecutors have absolute immunity for claims concerning trial-related training, supervision, and impeachment-information system management.

Van de Kamp v. Goldstein · filed 2009-01-26

For these reasons we conclude that petitioners are entitled to absolute immunity in respect to Goldstein’s claims that their supervision, training, or information- system management was constitutionally inadequate.

Section 1983 damages claims against licensing board members are barred by absolute immunity when the members perform adjudicatory functions.

Creusere v. Weaver · filed 2009-01-26

In this instance, the Standards Board members qualify for absolute immunity. They performed a traditional adjudicatory function of deciding facts in this disputed action, applying law, and resolving the case against Creusere on its merits.

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

Farrish v. Mississippi State Parole Board · filed 1988-02-05

We conclude that the district court properly found that the parolee was entitled to relief for a procedural due process violation, but we also conclude that the officers who conducted the preliminary parole revocation hearing should receive absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity in a section 1983 action depends on common-law immunity for similar official functions and the public interest in granting that protection.

Larry and Karen Spielman v. Sara C. Hildebrand and Don Madsen · filed 1989-05-03

When absolute immunity to a section 1983 action is not based on express constitutional or statutory provisions, we look to the immunities available at common law to officials performing similar functions and examine the public interest behind granting immunity of that scope.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges, prosecutors, and court clerks are barred by absolute immunity for the quasi-judicial acts or failures to act at issue.

Rodman v. Maxine Dalton Christopher E. Veidt James E. Stilwell · filed 1989-10-02

First, defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages for the quasi-judicial act or failure to act alleged.

Section 1983 claims against a prosecutor are barred by absolute immunity when based on the prosecutor’s decision not to investigate allegations tied to whether to prosecute.

Woolfolk v. Thomas · filed 1989-12-08

The court holds that, even given the latest accusations of “investigative wrongdoing,” defendant Matthews is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity to prosecutors who seek an arrest warrant as part of initiating a prosecution, but not to an investigator performing investigative duties.

Ireland v. Tunis · filed 1995-11-05

In summary, the Court holds that Plaintiff cannot sustain her § 1983 claims against Defendants Thompson and Tunis, because their involvement in the process of obtaining an arrest warrant is protected by absolute immunity. However, Defendant Meiers is not entitled to absolute immunity, because he acted as an investigator in that process.

Section 1983 affords parole officers absolute immunity for initiating revocation proceedings and for presenting or evaluating evidence in those proceedings.

Anderson v. New York State Division of Parole · filed 1982-09-08

Applying these principles to the ease at bar, we readily conclude that defendants Cutler, Mazzamurro, Giacopello, Mullen, Fowler and Viola are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in initiating the revocation proceedings, and in presenting and evaluating the evidence against plaintiff. There can be no question that in weighing the evidence against a releasee a hearing officer performs a quasi-judicial function, or that the officers who initiate and present the case against the releasee are engaging in quasi-prosecutorial conduct.

Judicial selection commissioners performing executive appointment functions are not absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims, though qualified immunity may apply.

Richardson v. James E.T. Koshiba, Joan S. Brown, Herbert C. Cornuelle, William L. Fleming, Henry T. Miyamoto, · filed 1982-12-01

For these reasons we hold that the Commission’s members are not entitled to absolute immunity. Because we conclude that monetary relief may be available depending on the resolution at trial of the qualified immunity question, we deny the motion to dismiss and need not reach the issue of whether Richardson’s prayer for injunctive relief is moot.

A § 1983 complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the defendants are absolutely immune.

Moses v. United States · filed 1996-11-26

Upon consideration, we conclude that this complaint was due to be dismissed as frivolous. The defendants are absolutely immune.

Section 1983 claims against judges and those performing judicial functions may be dismissed on absolute judicial immunity grounds.

Lopez v. Shapiro · filed 1998-02-19

Taking all of the allegations set out in the complaint as true and construing them ... in the light most favorable to Lopez, each of the defendants is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a state judge’s law clerk are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the clerk acts in a judicial capacity.

Gollomp v. Spitzer · filed 2009-06-08

In addition, Muldoon is entitled to absolute immunity as a law clerk to a state court judge because he was acting in a judicial capacity.

In a Section 1983 action, determining whether an investigator has absolute immunity requires a functional analysis.

Webster v. Bronson · filed 2009-07-06

The district court did not perform the functional analysis required to determine whether the investigator had absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not shield a grievance-hearing recordist with absolute quasi-judicial immunity for nondiscretionary recording duties.

Duprey v. TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT · filed 2009-07-27

Park is therefore not immune from suit for the actions she took related to the grievance hearing, given that none of those actions were discretionary in nature.

Officers executing a facially valid court order are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for conduct prescribed by that order.

Monroe v. Pueblo Police Department · filed 2002-02-01

The officers are further entitled to absolute immunity under the circumstances of this case.

A prosecuting attorney who submits a personal affidavit as a witness cannot claim absolute immunity from a § 1983 suit for false evidence in that affidavit.

Walsh v. City of New York · filed 2002-02-12

Nor was Siegel entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Guardians ad litem who assist the court in custody proceedings are absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims arising from that work.

Widoff v. Wiens · filed 2002-05-16

Sandra Jean Widoff (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s dismissal of her complaint, which alleged that Pamela G. Wiens (“Wiens”) and Daniel Saint, III (“Saint”) (together, “Defendants”) failed to adequately perform their duties as guardians ad litem in violation of Mother’s civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1; and the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 4. We affirm without reaching the merits of Mother’s claims because Defendants are absolutely immune from those claims.

A parole supervisor who approves parole violation warrants based on evidence gathered by another agent is absolutely immune from a Section 1983 suit for that adjudicative act.

Knox v. Donahue · filed 2002-11-25

Walker’s acts in issuing the parole violation warrants are entitled to absolute immunity from Knox’s Section 1983 suit.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against state defendants who are absolutely immune when carrying out quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Broker v. Szelewski · filed 2009-09-01

The district court properly granted summary judgment on appellants’ claim against the state defendants relating to the initiation and pursuit of child removal proceedings because state defendants are absolutely immune when carrying out their quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Constables who assist police officers in executing an arrest warrant are not entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 suits.

Davis v. Borough · filed 2009-10-21

Given that there is a “presumption ... that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties,” Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486-87, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991), there is no reason why constables who assist police officers in the execution of an arrest warrant should be entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 suits against parole board officials for parole decisions and prosecutors for parole recommendations are barred by absolute immunity.

Brownlee v. Van Court · filed 2009-10-30

The district court properly dismissed Brownlee’s claims because defendants are immune from suit. See Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that parole board officials are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suits arising from decisions to grant, deny, or revoke parole); Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 750 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that prosecutors should be afforded absolute immunity for parole recommendations because parole decisions are a continuation of the sentencing process).

A state attorney has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 suit for actions taken while representing state defendants in litigation.

Wang v. Logue · filed 2009-11-02

Wang raised claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as various state law claims. ... The district court correctly determined that Logue is absolutely immune from suit for actions taken during her representation of State defendants.

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct is part of their advocacy in post-conviction collateral proceedings.

Warney v. Monroe County · filed 2009-11-13

We join these courts in holding that absolute immunity shields work performed during a post-conviction collateral attack, at least insofar as the challenged actions are part of the prosecutor’s role as an advocate for the state.

Section 1983 does not give state corrections officials absolute immunity for actions taken in their corrections roles.

Hart v. Hodges · filed 2009-11-17

We therefore agree with Hart that the district court erred in granting absolute immunity to Defendants Amideo and Head for actions taken in their roles as state corrections officials and vacate the district court’s order as to Amideo and Head.

Federal law governs absolute immunity defenses to § 1983 claims; a state court’s characterization of officials as quasi-judicial does not control.

Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC. v. Decker · filed 2009-12-16

While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s determination may well have been consistent with Pennsylvania law, we are a federal court that must apply federal law to this particular issue.

Section 1983 permits suits for federal-rights deprivations but protects some officials with absolute immunity.

Bohmer v. New York · filed 2010-02-04

Courts have recognized two forms of immunity under § 1983: absolute and qualified. ... However, the courts have acknowledged that some officials perform special functions that warrant absolute immunity from damages, liability, based on common-law forms of immunity in place before the enactment of § 1983. ... Absolute immunity is accorded to judges and prosecutors functioning in their individual capacities and, under certain circumstances, is also extended to officials of government agencies “performing certain functions analogous to those of a prosecutor” or judge. ... Applying the Butz factors to these procedures, the Court finds that the NYSP disciplinary hearing is quasi-judicial and warrants absolute immunity for those officers integrally related to the proceeding.

Judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for acts within the scope of their judicial and prosecutorial duties.

Douglas v. Harris County Dist. Attorney, et · filed 2010-03-16

Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that the defendants had absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in the scope of their judicial and prosecutorial duties.

A witness who did not initiate the proceeding is entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 damages claim based on testimony in that proceeding.

Wilson v. Emond · filed 2010-04-21

Finally, because Emond’s testimony at the CBEC hearing did not serve to initiate the CBEC proceeding, Emond was not a “complaining witness,” and thus the district court properly determined that he was entitled to absolute immunity with regard to his testimony.

Section 1983 claims for damages may be barred by absolute immunity when officials act as prosecutors.

Knowlton v. Shaw · filed 2010-04-27

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for monetary damages under § 1983 for conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” ... Carefully reviewing all Mr. Knowlton’s allegations, the Court concludes that in performing the acts set forth in his Amended Complaint, the State Defendants were acting as prosecutors of a civil violation, not as police officers, and that they are therefore entitled to absolute immunity under Buckley.

An official executing a facially valid court order has absolute immunity from damages under § 1983 for conduct prescribed by that order.

Hackett v. Artesia Police Department · filed 2010-05-27

Because “[a]n official charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct prescribed by that order,” Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1286 (10th Cir. 1989), the district court correctly determined that Officer Huerta was entitled to absolute immunity.

State board members have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their quasi-judicial decisions about equalizing property valuations.

Marvin v. Fitch · filed 2010-05-27

For clarity, we recognize that although the Taxpayers filed both a petition for judicial review and a § 1983 civil rights claim in the court below, this appeal is confined to the application of absolute immunity to the Taxpayers’ § 1983 civil rights claim alleging that individual State Board members are liable because they refused to equalize property valuations pursuant to NRS 361.395. ... Applying the “functional approach” to this case, and following our further analysis below, we determine that the State Board and its individual members perform a quasi-judicial function when deciding to equalize property valuations. Accordingly, we conclude that the individual members are entitled to absolute immunity in their performance of this quasi-judicial act.

An official has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim based on initiating an administrative proceeding to revoke a permit.

Log Creek, LLC. v. Kessler · filed 2010-06-03

The better view is that revoking a permit is an executive or administrative function, not a legislative one. But the outcome is the same. The decision to initiate an executive or administrative action of this kind also is protected by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a court-appointed child representative for investigative communications made within her assigned duties when absolute immunity applies.

Golden v. HELEN SIGMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. · filed 2010-07-02

Having determined that absolute immunity and Rooker-Feldman wipe out Golden’s § 1983 claim, we conclude that the district court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 damages claims cannot proceed against prosecutors and judges for conduct protected by absolute immunity during a criminal trial.

Smith v. Link · filed 2010-07-20

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s claims against the deputy district attorney and the trial judge because they had absolute immunity for their alleged misconduct during Smith’s two trials.

A police officer who was not the complaining witness has absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for allegedly perjured testimony.

Williams v. Ruesch · filed 2010-10-07

The defendant police officer is entitled to absolute immunity because he did not function as the complaining witness in the criminal case against Williams.

The appellate court adopted the district court’s denial of absolute immunity to a child services caseworker in this § 1983 action.

AbdulShalaam v. Franklin County Board of Comm'rs · filed 2010-10-15

We find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by issuing a panel opinion regarding Spires’s claims to absolute and state-statutory immunity in view of the well-reasoned, comprehensive opinion of the district court, which the panel hereby adopts as its opinion to affirm the district court judgment.

Section 1983 affords child welfare caseworkers and attorneys absolute immunity for initiating dependency proceedings.

Breakwell v. Allegheny County Department of Human Services · filed 2010-10-22

Just as a prosecutor has absolute immunity for conduct “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976), so too are caseworkers and CYF attorneys immune when initiating dependency actions. Ernst, 108 F.3d at 495. Because the Breakwells’ claims against attorney Samulski are based solely on her actions as counsel for CYF during the dependency proceedings, we will affirm the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Samulski on all of the Breakwells’ claims against her.

Section 1983 does not give social workers absolute immunity for investigative and discretionary foster care licensing and placement decisions.

Tamas v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2010-12-22

However, Appellants’ decisions to license Fabregas and to retain Monica, Ruth and Estera in Fabregas’ care were not quasi-prosecutorial or quasi-judicial in nature. ... We therefore conclude that the Appellants were not entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a judge for a judicial act, including authorizing a bench warrant.

Ceparano v. Southampton Justice Court · filed 2011-01-05

The authorizing of Ceparano’s bench warrant was clearly a judicial act that entitles the Southampton Justice Court judge to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against board of review members for property assessment decisions protected by absolute immunity.

Heyde v. Pittenger · filed 2011-01-11

In sum, the actions of the BOR members are quasi- judicial in nature and they are accordingly entitled to ... absolute immunity.

Witnesses and prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for acts performed in the judicial process.

Polzin v. Gage · filed 2011-02-18

Absolute immunity shields a person acting in either capacity—whether as a witness or as a prosecutor—from § 1983 liability when performing her duties in the judicial process.

Section 1983 does not give law enforcement officers protecting executive officials absolute immunity without a recognized basis for that protection.

Howards v. McLaughlin · filed 2011-03-14

The Agents have failed to demonstrate a common law tradition, a Congressional purpose, or a decision from the Supreme Court or our circuit affording absolute immunity to law enforcement officers protecting executive officials, and we decline to extend such immunity here.

Section 1983 damages claims against Medicaid peer reviewers are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct is part of their quasi-judicial review functions.

Wittenberg v. Oklahoma Health Care Authority · filed 2011-03-16

Dr. Wittenberg alleges claims for relief against the APS Defendants for violation of his due process rights under § 1983 and for tortious interference with contract. ... Therefore, the APS Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for the entirety of plaintiffs claims against them.

A person acting pursuant to a facially valid court order has absolute immunity from damages under § 1983.

Gary Banks v. Mozingo · filed 2011-04-18

We agree with the District Court that Banks cannot maintain an action against the defendant who administered the blood tests. As Banks admits, the blood tests were conducted pursuant to a court order. An “action taken pursuant to a facially valid court order receives absolute immunity from § 1983 lawsuits for damages.” Hamilton v. Leavy, 322 F.3d 776, 782-83 (3d Cir. 2003). Banks does not suggest that the court order was invalid.

Staff of a property tax review board have absolute immunity from section 1983 claims arising from their participation in the board’s quasi-judicial decisions.

Satkar Hospitality Inc. v. Cook County Board of Review · filed 2011-05-20

Because it is clear from the complaint that plaintiffs are suing Guetzow, Sullivan, and Jaconetty for their actions in connection with the quasi-judicial decision making performed by the Board, they are entitled to absolute immunity from suit under section 1983.

A social worker has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for statements made in juvenile court filings as a legal advocate, even if the statements were intentionally false.

Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2011-05-20

Whether Hurry made intentional misrepresentations to the juvenile court in the complaint and affidavits does not affect the conclusion that she is entitled to absolute immunity.

A police officer who applies for an arrest warrant is not absolutely immune from a § 1983 claim.

Odom v. Kaizer · filed 2011-05-26

The claim is not barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Odom’s success on the claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions or sentences, see id. at 486-87; and Kaizer is not entitled to absolute immunity, see Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340-44 (1986) (denying absolute immunity to police officers who applied for arrest warrants; complaining witnesses were not shielded by absolute immunity at common law, and police officer applying for arrest warrant was not analogous to prosecutor seeking indictment).

Section 1983 does not give a prosecutor absolute immunity for failing to tell the court about a significant change affecting a material witness’s detention when that disclosure is a purely administrative duty.

Schneyder v. Smith · filed 2011-07-29

As the sole government official in possession of the relevant information, Smith had a duty of disclosure that was neither discretionary nor advocative, but was instead a purely administrative act not entitled to the shield of immunity, even after Van de Kamp.

Parole officials have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from a decision to designate a parolee a predatory sex offender without an evidentiary hearing.

Stafford v. Powers · filed 2011-08-16

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the ground that Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity with respect to their decision to designate Stafford a predatory sex offender without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Section 1983 provides no damages remedy against a prosecutor for statements to a court about a witness’s availability when those statements are acts of advocacy protected by absolute immunity.

Adams v. Hanson · filed 2011-08-30

We conclude that Hanson’s statements before the trial court at the preliminary examination regarding Adams’s availability as a witness fell within her role as an advocate for the State of Michigan and are therefore absolutely protected.

A probation officer who files and presents a probation violation petition is not entitled to absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim without showing that the conduct was judicial, integral to the judicial process, or comparable to protected prosecutorial conduct.

Johnson v. Root · filed 2011-09-01

The Court finds, however, that Root has not met his burden in establishing that his conduct challenged here was judicial in nature, integral to the judicial process, or functionally comparable to prosecutorial action entitled to absolute immunity.

Officials who act pursuant to a facially valid court order have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for those actions.

McGeachy v. John Doe 1 · filed 2011-09-20

McGeachy has presented no reason to conclude that the order was not facially valid. Thus, the LCCF defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for the actions they took pursuant to that order, rendering McGeachy’s complaint against them legally frivolous.

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity to a duly appointed administrative examiner performing quasi-judicial functions.

Feliciano v. Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund · filed 2011-10-13

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant Jiménez is entitled to absolute immunity, as she is was duly appointed by the PR-SIF as an official examiner to perform quasi-judicial judgment on the evidence before her, free from pressures by the parties or other officials within the agency.

Section 1983 claims against a social worker for initiating child dependency proceedings are barred by absolute immunity.

Chambers v. Santa Clara County · filed 2011-11-02

The district court properly concluded that defendant Dudley was entitled to absolute immunity from Chambers’s § 1983 claims concerning the initiation of child dependency proceedings.

Section 1983 does not give a social worker absolute immunity for personally attesting to assertions in an affidavit supporting a child custody petition.

Humphrey v. Sapp · filed 2012-02-08

Given the similarity between the Kalina prosecutor’s function and Sapp’s function here, we conclude that absolute immunity does not bar the Humphreys’ § 1983 claim against Sapp.

Section 1983 does not give absolute immunity to housing authority officials performing functions that are neither judicial, prosecutorial, nor legislative.

Ford v. Donovan · filed 2012-02-13

The law, however, has not stretched this doctrine to cover officials at an agency like DCHA who are functioning not as judges, prosecutors, or legislators.

Absolute prosecutorial immunity does not cover an officer’s alleged falsification of warrant affidavits or false preliminary-hearing testimony because those acts are not advocacy.

Myers v. Koopman · filed 2012-02-14

This argument fails, however, because not even a prosecutor would be immune in performing the acts alleged against Koopman. ... The actions alleged here—falsifying information in affidavits and giving false testimony in a preliminary hearing—are not those of “an advocate initiating and presenting the government’s case.”

Section 1983 affords absolute immunity for quasi-judicial decisions to revoke mandatory supervised release.

Wofford v. Walker · filed 2012-02-28

And assuming that the chairman of the Prisoner Review Board played a personal role in revoking Wofford’s mandatory supervised release (which is unclear since the 15-member Board acts through 3-member panels, 730 ILCS 5/3-3-l(b), 5/3-3-9(e)), the chairman is nonetheless absolutely immune under § 1983 because the revocation of mandatory supervised release is a quasi-judicial act.

Section 1983 affords police officers absolute immunity from liability based on their testimony at adversarial pretrial suppression hearings.

Hayes v. County of Sullivan · filed 2012-03-30

Suppression hearings are adversarial pretrial proceedings, Daloia, 849 F.2d at 75, and thus Gorr and Starner are absolutely immune from any liability based on the testimony they provided at Plaintiffs suppression hearing.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a witness for trial testimony, even if the testimony was allegedly false.

Ortiz v. Saez · filed 2012-03-31

But Sanchez is absolutely immune from section 1983 damages for his testimony, and is entitled to the dismissal of any such claims.

In §1983 actions, grand jury witnesses have absolute immunity from claims based on their testimony, including claims that they conspired to present false testimony.

Rehberg v. Paulk · filed 2012-04-02

This means that a grand jury witness has absolute immunity from any §1983 claim based on the witness’ testimony. In addition, as the Court of Appeals held, this rule may not be circumvented by claiming that a grand jury witness conspired to present false testimony or by using evidence of the witness’ testimony to support any other §1983 claim concerning the initiation or maintenance of a prosecution.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a grand jury witness based on that witness’s testimony, even if the testimony is alleged to be false.

Peteete v. Asbury Park Police Department · filed 2012-05-01

Peteete’s lone claim on appeal is that the District Court erred in finding Samis to be absolutely immune from § 1983 liability. ... We therefore conclude that the District Court did not err by determining that Detective Samis is entitled to absolute immunity for his grand jury testimony.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on state medical board members for quasi-judicial summary suspensions or related hearing decisions because they have absolute immunity.

Buckwalter v. State of Nevada Board · filed 2012-06-08

We now hold that the Board Members’ exercise of their summary suspension authority is comparable to a judicial act. Hence, the Board Members are entitled to absolute immunity.

A board chair has absolute immunity from individual-capacity § 1983 damages claims for quasi-judicial participation in an administrative appeal.

Embassy Realty Investment, LLC v. City of Cleveland · filed 2012-07-05

Based on the foregoing, the Court must conclude that defendant Denk is entitled, as a matter of law, to absolute immunity for his participation in the local BBS/BA appeal from the condemnation order.

Section 1983 claims against state board counsel and members are barred by absolute immunity when they perform quasi-prosecutorial or quasi-judicial functions.

Di Ruzzo v. Tabaracci · filed 2012-07-13

As we conclude that the counsel and members of the Texas Medical Board were performing quasi-prosecutorial and quasi-judicial functions with respect to the hearing regarding Di Ruzzo’s alleged unlicensed practice of medicine, the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Tabaracci, Costa, Mitchell, and Doe on absolute immunity grounds was proper.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages suit against a county attorney for appointing a special prosecutor when the appointment is protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Lacey v. Arpaio · filed 2012-08-29

Thomas, however, may not be sued under § 1983 and is entitled to absolute immunity for his appointment of Dennis Wilenchik as Independent Special Deputy Maricopa County Attorney.

Section 1983 claims against university regents are barred by absolute immunity when their termination decision is a quasi-judicial action functionally comparable to a judicial process.

Churchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder · filed 2012-09-10

First, we hold that the Regents' decision to terminate Churchill's employment was a quasi-judicial action functionally comparable to a judicial process. Hence, the Regents are entitled to absolute immunity concerning their decision to terminate Churchill.

Section 1983 provides prosecutors absolute immunity from damages claims for withholding exculpatory evidence during a criminal prosecution.

Charleston v. Clint Allen, Criminal District Attorney of Cass County · filed 2012-10-15

We agree, under the functional approach of Imbler, that a Brady violation is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. We conclude the violations alleged here are advocacy functions. To the extent that Charleston’s petition seeks civil damages, Allen has absolute immunity from suit.

Officials who participate in an extradition decision are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability arising from that decision.

Slater v. Clarke · filed 2012-11-19

Because the decision whether or not to extradite a criminal defendant is intimately associated with the criminal phase of the judicial process, government officials are absolutely immune from suits arising out of their performance of this function.

Agency officials have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for entering into consent agreements as advocates enforcing state law.

Knowlton v. Shaw · filed 2013-01-04

In sum, the state officials carried their burden in establishing they are entitled to absolute immunity for entering into the consent agreements with Knowlton and Bankers Life.

Section 1983 claims against judges, probation officers, and prosecutors may be barred by absolute immunity.

Abbott v. Oller · filed 2013-02-04

On de novo review, we agree with the district court that Abbott failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the defendant sheriff’s deputies, ... and that his claims against the defendant judges, probation officers, and prosecutor were barred by absolute immunity, see Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (judges); Anton v. Getty, 78 F.3d 393, 396 (8th Cir. 1996) (probation officers); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996) (prosecutors).

Police officers have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on their grand jury testimony.

James Vaughan, III v. City of Shaker Heights · filed 2013-02-12

Because Rehberg indisputably allows officers the defense of absolute immunity against any § 1983 claim premised upon grand jury testimony, Hyams’s motion to dismiss should have been granted in this narrow regard.

Section 1983 does not allow damages claims against administrative law judges and prosecutors who are absolutely immune for performing judicial or prosecutorial functions.

Nowicki v. Delao · filed 2013-02-12

Nowicki and Tremel next challenge the dismissal of their § 1983 due process claims against the Wisconsin ALJs, but we agree with the district court that the ALJs (as well as the assistant attorneys general) are absolutely immune from claims for damages under § 1983.

Social workers are not absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims based on their investigative conduct.

Palmer v. Adams · filed 2013-02-13

To the extent that Count I of the complaint was based on Adams’s initiation of the sexual-abuse investigation and the continuation of that investigation, Adams was not entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit a malicious prosecution claim against a police officer based on the officer’s grand jury testimony because the officer has absolute immunity for that testimony.

Peterson v. Regina · filed 2013-03-28

Even if Peterson had been able to marshal evidence sufficient to show that Officer Regina lied in the grand jury, he would still fail to make out a claim for malicious prosecution because police officers are entitled to absolute immunity for their testimony before the grand jury.

Judges acting within their judicial role and police officers testifying in court are absolutely immune from damages liability under Section 1983.

Robinson v. Rubin · filed 2013-05-22

The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action because defendants are immune from liability.

Section 1983 does not give social workers absolute immunity for removing children from a home when they act in a police capacity rather than as legal advocates.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2013-07-31

Concerning the removal of the children from the home, the district court did not err in denying the social workers’ motion for absolute immunity. When the social workers removed the children from the home, they were acting in a police capacity rather than as legal advocates.

Section 1983 does not provide absolute prosecutorial immunity for detaining a material witness for investigative interrogation.

Simon v. City of New York · filed 2013-08-16

We hold only that defendants are not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity with respect to Simon’s allegation that she was unlawfully detained for investigative interrogation.

Section 1983 does not give county prosecutors absolute immunity for filing a civil RICO suit when their actions are not sufficiently analogous to those of a prosecutor.

Stapley v. Pestalozzi · filed 2013-08-16

The sole issue before us is whether Defendants are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their actions in filing the civil RICO complaint. The parties agree that state-law prosecutorial immunity from the state-law claims is the same as federal-law immunity from claims ... under § 1983. We hold that Defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Municipal entities are not entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 suits even when their officers are immune.

Capra v. Cook County Board of Review · filed 2013-08-21

We have followed this directive and held consistently that municipal entities are not entitled to absolute immunity even where the entity’s officers are entitled to immunity.

Social workers have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for prosecutorial functions, but not for administrative or investigative conduct.

Evans v. Pitt County Department of Social Services · filed 2013-09-18

The court in Vosburg recognized that absolute immunity for social workers does not extend to their administrative or investigative activities. ... The complaint, however, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, asserts other types of misconduct aside from actions that could only be categorized as “prosecutorial.” ... Therefore, individual defendants’ objection on the' basis of absolute immunity is overruled.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on prosecutors for delaying disclosure of exculpatory evidence when they act in their advocacy role.

Segers v. Williams · filed 2014-01-27

As with a prosecutor that fails to turn over exculpatory evidence at all prior to trial, a prosecutor who turns over exculpatory evidence, but delays in doing so, is entitled to absolute immunity. Accordingly, the ADAs’ conduct falls decisively within their advocacy function, and they are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 provides absolute immunity for testimony in court, but that immunity does not extend to a child protective service worker’s actions outside court.

Cruz v. Mississippi Department of Human Services · filed 2014-03-10

As such, Hayes is absolutely immune for her testimony at the Youth Court, but that immunity does not extend to any of her actions outside of the court with respect to Baltazar Cruz’s case.

Section 1983 permits suit against a parole commissioner, but absolute quasi-judicial immunity bars damages claims based on acts taken in that capacity.

Redmond v. Fulwood · filed 2014-04-18

Although the defendant is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under Bfvens v. Six U)wknoivn Named Agents of F ed. Bureau ofNarcotz'cs, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), see Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm 'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005), he is "absolutely immune from a lawsuit such as this which is predicated on acts taken in [his] quasi-judicial . . . capacity." Jones v. Fulwr)od, 860 F. Supp. 2d 16, 22 (D.D.C. 20l2) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Fletcher v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n, 550 F. Supp. 2d 30, 43 (D.D.C. 2008) ( reaffirming grant to USPC Commissioners of absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit).

Correctional staff are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims when they enforce the precise terms of a valid court order.

Love v. Clarke · filed 2014-04-25

The correctional staff who limited Love to contacting only his attorney are entitled to absolute immunity for enforcing the precise terms of a valid court order.

Absolute testimonial immunity bars § 1983 claims based on a witness’s allegedly fabricated trial testimony.

LeFever v. Ferguson · filed 2014-06-06

Accepting this finding, the alleged fabrication occurred at LeFever’s trial. And, as LeFever conceded at oral argument, absolute immunity shields Ferguson’s trial testimony as a matter of law.

Social workers have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for actions taken in a prosecutorial capacity, including preparing, filing, and prosecuting removal petitions.

Evans v. Perry · filed 2014-07-11

We therefore conclude that Ross and Million were entitled to absolute immunity from Evans’ claim that they violated her procedural due process rights in depriving her of her property when her assets were frozen.

Section 1983 does not give absolute immunity to a psychologist appointed by an executive agency to perform an evaluation required by state law when the court did not appoint him.

Brown v. Smith · filed 2014-07-16

So it does not matter that Smith was performing a function that was required by Illinois law — the important point is that the state court did not appoint him. Absolute immunity is the exception, not the rule, and does not apply here.

In a § 1983 action, absolute immunity does not protect a social worker who personally swears to facts supporting a juvenile court’s probable cause determination.

Young v. Vega · filed 2014-07-30

Absolute immunity will not bar Young’s claims to the extent he has limited the wrongful acts complained of to Vega’s swearing to the truth of the facts that provided the evidentiary basis for the juvenile court’s probable cause determination.

A state attorney and an expert witness may be absolutely immune from § 1983 claims arising from their participation in a parental-rights proceeding.

Mazzetti v. Wood · filed 2014-07-30

But, the court need not consider claims against Slaff and Nadelman: our review of the record convinces us that the court correctly found that those defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.

Officials are not absolutely immune from a Section 1983 damages claim for placing a patient on an emergency medical hold before judicial proceedings begin.

Thomas v. Kaven · filed 2014-08-26

The defendants’ decision to place an emergency medical hold on M.T. in anticipation of Mrs. Thomas’s attempt to discharge M.T. is not protected by absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity can bar a Section 1983 claim against a social services agent for allegedly failing to give notice of a child’s removal and the resulting probable cause hearing.

Booker v. South Carolina Department of Social Services · filed 2014-09-09

Although not addressed by the district court, we also conclude that Sullivan’s absolute immunity extends to her alleged failure to notify Booker of J.J.’s removal and the resulting probable cause hearing.

Section 1983 suits cannot proceed against state bar disciplinary advocates for acts performed within their prosecutorial advocacy functions and territorial jurisdictions.

Kivisto v. Soifer · filed 2014-09-17

Prosecutors, including state bar disciplinary advocates, are absolutely immune from all suits challenging their prosecutorial advocacy functions, so long as those functions occur within their territorial jurisdictions.

A government attorney defending a civil suit has absolute immunity from a subsequent Section 1983 suit.

Alroy v. City of New York Law Department · filed 2014-11-24

Nonetheless, the Complaint fails to state a claim because a government attorney defending a civil suit has absolute immunity from a subsequent Section 1983 suit.

An investigator assisting a prosecutor with evidence for trial after indictment may have absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff · filed 2014-12-18

Accordingly, Taylor is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions related to obtaining CBLA evidence.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against police officers for fabricating investigative evidence when absolute witness immunity does not cover that conduct.

Lisker v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2015-03-20

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Lisker seeks damages from two Los Angeles Police Department detectives for fabricating reports, investigative notes, and photographs of the crime scene during the homicide investigation. The detectives also testified during preliminary proceedings and at trial, and the issue before us is whether the doctrine of absolute witness immunity, which shields the detectives from suit for their testimony, also extends to their pre-trial actions. We hold that it does not.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against a prosecutor for conduct protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Díaz-Colón v. Fuentes-Agostini · filed 2015-05-18

Absolute immunity therefore shields ADA Redondo from having to stand trial for the malicious prosecution and conspiracy claims under section 1983.

Police officers are immune from § 1983 damages liability for their trial testimony.

Munoz v. Rivera · filed 2015-06-23

Yet, defendants are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims- based on their testimony.

A prosecutor has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for conduct during a state habeas hearing.

Jenkins v. Walker · filed 2015-07-10

Bikoff’s alleged conduct occurred during a habeas corpus hearing, a judicial phase, and thus is protected by absolute immunity.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on their decision to initiate a prosecution, even if they lacked a good faith belief that wrongdoing occurred.

Munchinski v. Solomon · filed 2015-07-20

The arrest of a criminal defendant and the filing of charges are at the core of the prosecutorial function, and “[a] prosecutor is absolutely immune when making [the decision to initiate a prosecution], even where he acts without a good faith belief that any wrongdoing has occurred.” Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1464 (3d Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for this conduct.

Section 1983 does not give forensic experts absolute immunity for alleged fabrication of opinions during a criminal investigation before probable cause exists.

Stinson v. Rawson · filed 2015-08-25

Here, Stinson accuses the odontologists of fabricating their opinions during the investigative phase of the Cychosz case, before probable cause existed. In light of Rehberg and the principles outlined in Buckley III, absolute immunity does not apply to this alleged misconduct.

Section 1983’s absolute testimonial immunity does not protect an officer who lies to investigators to get someone charged before prosecutors decide to bring charges.

Cole v. Hunter · filed 2015-09-25

An officer who lies to investigating officers in order to try to get someone charged with a crime—before the decision to charge has been made—is not entitled to absolute testimonial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against officials acting in a prosecutorial capacity are barred by absolute immunity, although that immunity does not bar equitable relief.

Dannon Sellers v. Plattsmier · filed 2015-12-03

The district court properly concluded that the LADB employees were absolutely immune from suit because their decision not to pursue disciplinary charges against the attorneys was prosecutorial in nature. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431–31 (1976); Green v. State Bar of Tex., 27 F.3d 1083, 1088 (5th Cir. 1994). Though Sellers is correct that such immunity does not bar requests for equitable relief, see Chrissy F. by Medley v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 849 (5th Cir. 1991), he did not request any specific relief in his request for a preliminary injunction.

Section 1983 damages claims are barred by absolute immunity when defendants impose GPS monitoring as a condition of probation under their discretionary authority.

Frantom v. Cedric White · filed 2015-12-16

The district court properly dismissed Frantom’s action because defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for imposing Global Positioning System (“GPS”) monitoring as a condition of Frantom’s probation pursuant to their discretionary authority under section 1210.12 of the California Penal Code.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a U.S. Parole Commission case analyst for performing quasi-judicial functions.

Stoddard v. Wynn · filed 2016-03-10

However, the remaining Defendant in this case enjoys absolute immunity from liability for having performed his quasi-judicial functions as a case analyst at USPC.

Grand jury witness immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim based independently on the use of an allegedly coerced confession at a bail hearing.

Kenney v. Clay · filed 2016-03-23

Because plaintiff has put into issue the bail hearing in which the alleged confession was utilized, it cannot be said that his § 1983 claim is “based on” the grand jury testimony alone.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against an official for action taken under a facially valid court order.

Tarapchak v. Lackawanna County · filed 2016-03-24

It is established in this Circuit “action taken pursuant to a facially valid court order receives absolute immunity from § 1983 lawsuits for damages.”

Section 1983 claims against prosecutors are barred by absolute immunity for deprivations arising from their prosecutorial role.

Harrell v. City of New York · filed 2016-04-21

Because the deprival about which plaintiff complains relates to ADA Itkin’s prosecutorial role, she is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims based solely on grand jury testimony are barred by absolute immunity.

Watson v. Sims · filed 2016-04-29

Sims and Baker thus enjoy absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based solely on their grand jury testimony and preparation for such testimony.

Section 1983 claims based entirely on grand jury testimony are barred by absolute witness immunity.

Hoschar v. Layne · filed 2016-05-10

Nonetheless, because the Hoschars’ § 1983 claim rests entirely on Layne’s and Wilson’s grand jury testimony, Rehberg controls and we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against the Supreme Court Clerk or staff for actions within their official duties because they have absolute immunity.

Benson v. Harris · filed 2016-06-29

Second, the Supreme Court Clerk and his staff enjoy absolute immunity from a lawsuit for money damages based on actions, such as alleged here, that fall within the scope of their official duties.

Absolute testimonial immunity bars a § 1983 claim based on a witness’s statement to a prosecutor made in preparation for trial testimony.

O'Neal v. City of New York · filed 2016-07-22

But absolute immunity does shield Morales’s statement to the prosecutor in preparation for his trial testimony.

A grand-jury witness has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim based on the witness’s testimony.

Meidinger v. Ragnone · filed 2016-08-30

Thus, with only Meidinger’s Fourth Amendment claim based solely on Ragnone’s false grand-jury testimony at issue, the district court did not err in finding Ragnone absolutely immune from a § 1983 suit under Rehberg.

Section 1983 does not shield labor board officials with absolute immunity for administrative actions overseeing a union representation election.

Lopez v. Shiroma · filed 2016-09-14

We affirm the district court’s determination that defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity.

A defendant is absolutely immune from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim based entirely on his grand-jury testimony.

Royse v. Wilbers · filed 2016-10-03

Therefore, the facts alleged in Royse’s complaint did not allow the district court to draw the inference that Wilbers was liable for malicious prosecution, because he was entitled to absolute immunity for his grand-jury testimony.

Section 1983 permits claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against parole board members who are immune from damages.

Tripp v. Bisbee · filed 2016-11-02

However, while defendants are immune from suit for damages, because Tripp sought only injunctive and declaratory relief, defendants were not entitled to immunity.

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case, including decisions about using a witness.

Barnett v. Marquis · filed 2016-11-03

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for prosecutorial conduct, which is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”