California Codes
Cal. Government Code § 821.6 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 187
cases (72 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Merritt Sharp, III v. Cnty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017).
Merritt Sharp, III v. Cnty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017). “2 and “prosecutorial” immunity under Cal. Gov. Code § 821.6 – did not apply as a matter of law.”
Inman v. Anderson, 294 F. Supp. 3d 907 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “In their motion to dismiss, the County Defendants argue that they are immune from liability on Plaintiff's Bane Act claim pursuant to California Government Code § 821.6. County Mot.”
Detrice Garmon v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2016). “Next, the R & R concluded that County Defendants were immune under California Government Code sections 821.6 and 815.”
Gillan v. City of San Marino, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “CONTENTIONS Defendants contend: (1) they had probable cause to arrest Gillan based on the accuser’s statements and reports by others who interviewed her; (2) Government Code sections 821.6 and 820.2 immunize them from liability for violation of Civil Code section 52.”
Gary Blankenhorn v. City of Orange Andy Romero Dung Nguyen Garrett Ross Tamara South Gray, Sergeant Montano, Officer Kayano, Officer Roman, Officer, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007). “17 101 Second, Defendants claim that California Government Code section 821.6 bars liability from Blankenhorn's remaining state law causes of action.”
Garcia v. City of Merced, 637 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “Defendants Cardwood, City of Merced, City of Merced Police Department, Merced County, Merced County Sheriffs Department, Merced County Deputy Sheriff Taylor and Merced County District Attorney Spencer claim immunity under California Government Code § 821.6 and § 815.”
Bocanegra v. Jakubowski, 241 Cal. App. 4th 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “In the published portion of this opinion, we will hold that Bocanegra adequately alleged that Jakubowski was liable for false imprisonment; we will also hold that statutory prosecutorial immunity (Gov. Code, § 821.6) did not apply to the false imprisonment claim.”
Angel Mendez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 897 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2018). “First, they argue that California Government Code section 821.6 immunizes the officers from liability.”
Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 181 Cal. App. 4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “All defendants claimed they were entitled to summary adjudication because the district attorney’s investigatory staff, the district attorney himself, and the County are all immune to these claims.”
B.H. v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 361 P.3d 319 (Cal. 2015). “‖ (Gov. Code, § 821.6.) 9 C. Section 11166, Subdivision (k) We first determine whether section 11166, subdivision (k) imposed on the Sheriff‘s Department an independent and mandatory duty to inform the child welfare agency of the initial 911 report.”
Medeiros v. Merced Cnty. Sheriff Deputy Clark, 713 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “Defendants did not reasonably investigate the alleged offenses, fabricated evidence and filed false reports, and knew plaintiff was innocent of the charged offenses.”
Scott v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5923 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “Under subdivision (b), the County is immune from liability if, and only if, Maxwell is immune.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.