David Neil Spaulding v. Thomas W. Nielsen, Chief U.S. Prob. Officer, & Henry Lucas, Jr., Deputy U.S. Prob. Officer, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
David Neil Spaulding v. Thomas W. Nielsen, Chief U.S. Prob. Officer, & Henry Lucas, Jr., Deputy U.S. Prob. Officer, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 · 2 courts · …we have no occasion to decide today, and do not decide, whether immunity will shield probation officers from civil liability for official activities apart from the presentence report process. ✓
101 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 35 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Darrin Williams v. Dawn Morahan (ca11, 2013-09-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Darrin Williams v. Dawn Morahan
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we hold that a probation officer is entitled to the same protection of absolute immunity when preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watford v. Blanche
D. Maryland · 2022 · confidence medium
Asa result, several United States Courts of Appeals have held that absolute judicial immunity extends to “federal probation officers preparing and furnishing presentence reports to the court.” Jd; see Tripati U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 784 F.2d 345 , 347-48 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (granting absolute immunity to federal probation officers preparing a presentence report); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (Sth Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Clapp
E.D. Mich. · 2020 · confidence medium
Cir. 1988) (extending quasi-judicial immunity to state probation officers who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to prepare a proper presentence report); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979) (same, with respect to federal probation officers).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Akeem Washington v. Shannon Rivera (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Quasi-judicial immunity grants protection from suit to officials who are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979)). 5 We determine whether a government employee deserves quasi-judicial immunity through an analysis of that employee’s functions, 4 Rivera can appeal the district court’s order immediately under the collateral order doctrine.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Root
N.D. Ill. · 2011 · confidence medium
Under this rationale, several circuits have held that probation officers are entitled to absolute immunity for their preparation of presentence reports (“PSRs”) because in preparing the reports, they act at the direction of the court and are therefore serving “as an arm of the court.” See Scotto, 143 F.3d at 111 (citing Dorman v. Higgins, 821 F.2d 133, 137 (2d Cir.1987)); Tripati v. INS, 784 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir.1986); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979); see also Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 970 (7th Cir.2009) (“Guardians ad litem and court-appointed exper…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hart v. Hodges
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Probation officers are entitled to absolute immunity for the preparation and submission of a presentence report in a criminal case because the “report is an integral part of the sentencing process, and in preparing the report the probation officer acts at the direction of the court.” Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (state probation officer) (quoting Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (federal probation officer)). “[T]his narrow function is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process[.]” Hughes, 731 F.2d at 1490 (inter…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Orukotan Abimbola v. Broward County
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 730 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleming v. Dowdell
M.D. Ala. · 2005 · confidence medium
The court notes, though, that Fifth Circuit's decision in Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979), as interpreted by Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir.1983), and the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals’ decision in McCammon v. Young-blood, 853 So.2d 249, 252-53 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002), appears to undermine Dowdell’s assertion of absolute immunity.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert Lee Beck, Md, Dmd v. Texas State Board Of Dental Examiners
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
The preparation of a presentence report is a narrow function that is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal justice process." Spaulding v. Neilsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beck v. Texas State Board of Dental Examiners
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
The preparation of a presentence report is a narrow function that is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal justice process.” Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scotto v. Almenas
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Accord, Tripati v. INS, 784 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir.1986)(per curiam); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979)(per curiam); see also, Hili v. Sciarrotta, 140 F.3d 210, 213 (2d Cir.1998) (New York state probation officers absolutely immune for preparing and furnishing presentence reports); Anton, 78 F.3d at 396 (state parole officers receive absolute immunity for preparing equivalent of PSR). 21 However, "[t]he more distant a function is from the judicial process, the less likely absolute immunity will attach." Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 687 (10th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scotto v. Almenas
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Accord, Tripati v. INS, 784 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir.1986)(per curiam); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979)(per curiam); see also, Hili v. Sciarrotta, 140 F.3d 210, 213 (2d Cir.1998) (New York state probation officers absolutely immune for preparing and furnishing presentence reports); Anton, 78 F.3d at 396 (state parole officers receive absolute immunity for preparing equivalent ofPSR).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Hili v. Joseph L. Sciarrotta, Dir. Of Probation, Diane Eich, Probation Officer
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Dorman v. Higgins, 821 F.2d 133, 136-39 (2d Cir.1987); see also Tripati v. INS, 784 F.2d 345, 347-48 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 1028 , 108 S.Ct. 755 , 98 L.Ed.2d 767 (1988); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anton v. Getty
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995); Turner v. Barry, 856 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (D.C.Cir.1988) (per curiam); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157-58 (9th Cir.1986); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Viero v. Bufano
N.D. Ill. · 1996 · confidence medium
That hypothetical situation, and not the facts of this case, is analogous to the cases cited by Búfano where quasi-judicial immunity was granted to a probation officer (Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam)), court reporters (Scruggs v. Moellering, 870 F.2d 376, 377 (7th Cir.1989); Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755, 762-63 (7th Cir.1989)) and parole board members (Walrath v. United States, 35 F.3d 277, 281-84 (7th Cir.1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donald C. Anton v. Carol P. Getty
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995); Turner v. Barry, 856 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (D.C.Cir.1988) (per curiam); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157-58 (9th Cir.1986); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Viero v. Bufano
N.D. Ill. · 1995 · confidence medium
Búfano and Quasi-Judicial Immunity As quoted earlier, Complaint ¶ 11(a) alleges that Búfano “failed to take adequate steps to assure [Rosario] received his medication, and to assure that [Rosario’s] mental health history, diagnosis and suicidal ideation were adequately communicated to the Illinois Department of Corrections.” Juvenile Court probation officer Búfano claims that because she obtained information about Rosario in the course of performing a social investigation for purposes of a judicial dispositional hearing, she is entitled to absolute immunity because she was performing…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sandles v. Schneider
E.D. Wis. · 1995 · confidence medium
Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.M. ex rel. Law v. Grant
M.D. Ala. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (state probation officers enjoy immunity to the same extent as would a federal probation officer); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (federal probation officers enjoy absolute judicial immunity from damage suits for preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AM BY AND THROUGH LAW v. Grant
M.D. Ala. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (state probation officers enjoy immunity to the same extent as would a federal probation officer); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (federal probation officers enjoy absolute judicial immunity from damage suits for preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henry Mitchell and Donna Mitchell, Individually, and as Next Friend for William Devon Mitchell v. John McBryde and Scott Wiggins
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Johnson, 870 F.2d at 995-997 (examples of those entitled to absolute judicial or prosecutorial immunity); Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172 at 175 (5th Cir.1988) (probation officer in reference to presentence report); Spaulding v. Nielson, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Robert Stimac v. United States Department of Justice, Agent Conway, Agent Fincher
7th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979). 11 The court did not err in dismissing Stimac's action as completely frivolous as a matter of both fact and law in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daniel Johnson v. Joe Kegans and John Holmes (2×)
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Freeze, 849 F.2d at 175 ; Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George Turner, II v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Mayor
D.C. Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
We agree that the prospect of damage liability under section 1983 “would seriously erode the officer’s ability to carry out his independent fact finding function” and would, as a result, “impair the sentencing judge’s ability to carry out his judicial duties.” Demoran, 781 F.2d at 157 ; Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Whitacre v. Davey
D.D.C. · 1988 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Warren Freeze, Jr. v. George Griffith, Douglas Warren Freeze, Jr. v. Stanley Labove, Douglas Warren Freeze, Jr. v. James R. Savoie
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
The judge who presided over Freeze’s trial is absolutely immune from Freeze’s § 1983 suit for damages, Brewer v. Blackwell, 692 F.2d 387, 396 (5th Cir. 1982), as are the prosecuting attorney, Im-bler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and the probation officer for failing to prepare properly the presentence report, Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank S. Dorman v. Michael Higgins
2d Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Our conclusion is in accord with those of the Fifth and Tenth Circuits in Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam), and Tripati v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 784 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam), and with the similar conclusions of other circuits with respect to state probation officers operating within similar frameworks, e.g., Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157-58 (9th Cir.1985); *139 Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carol MACZKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terrence JOYCE, Officer in Charge, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee
6th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Pope v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 479 (1986) (no jurisdiction under section 1361 to *311 mandamus payment for unliquidated damages); Hudiburgh v. United States, 626 F.2d 813, 814 (10th Cir.1980); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 730 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Small v. Sutton
D. Colo. · 1987 · confidence medium
Huges v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (granting state probation officer absolute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 immunity); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (granting absolute immunity to federal probation officers); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1970), cert, denied, 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971) (granting “similar, if not the same,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 immunity given to judges, to Los Angeles County probation officer).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bryant v. O'CONNOR
D. Kan. · 1986 · confidence medium
See also Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir.1984) (probation officer allegedly falsified presentence report); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (probation officer prepared erroneous presentence report); Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231 (3rd Cir.1977) (parole officer submitted allegedly false information leading to revocation of plaintiff’s parole and subsequent denial of bail); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971) (probation officer allegedly falsified presentence report); Crosby-Bey v. …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tripati v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
10th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (granting absolute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 immunity); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979) (granting absolute immunity to federal probation officers); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971) (granting “similar, if not the same,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 immunity given judges).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anant Kumar Tripati v. United States Immigration And Naturalization Service
10th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sec. 1983 immunity); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (granting absolute immunity to federal probation officers); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971) (granting "similar, if not the same," 42 U.S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael R. Bess v. Dean E. Iverson and Michigan Department of Corrections
6th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Burks v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U. S. 908 (1971); Ray v. Pickett, 734 F.2d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1984); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Donald Ray Hughes v. William Chesser
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Defendants’ activities were within this protected function, and the complaint seeking damages was properly dismissed. 599 F.2d at 729 (footnotes omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bobby E. Maynard v. Al Havenstrite
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, *441 681 F.2d 1015, 1030-31 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 104 S.Ct. 79 , 78 L.Ed.2d 90 (1983); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 730 (5th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arthur Edward Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, an Instrumentality of the Departments of the Army and of the Air Force
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
That this section cannot serve as a jurisdictional basis.for Sheehan’s unliquidated monetary claim is evident from Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 730 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" WILSON v. DAWSON
M.D. Ga. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984) (affirming the district court’s finding that state probation officers were immune from suit by extending Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1979)); Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005) (finding probation officers are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity in preparing presentence investigation reports); Rolle v. Raysor, 267 F. App’x 925, 926 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of complaint at preliminary screening, in part, because probation officer was immune from suit under § 1983).
cited Cited "see" Arnone v. Syed
N.D. Tex. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Morahan
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (“We hold that a probation officer is entitled to the same protection [of absolute immunity] when preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case.”); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (dismissing suit against federal probation officer alleged to have falsified facts in a presentence investigation report and stating that “[t]he immunity extended ... to a federal probation officer would be equally applicable to a state probation officer ”) (emphasis added); Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 12…
cited Cited "see" Kaufmann v. United States
E.D. Wis. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited "see" Cynthia A. Forrester v. Judge Howard Lee White (2×)
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1979) (probation officer immune from damages for alleged misconduct in investigation and preparation of pre-sentence report); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9th Cir.1970) (probation officer has derivative judicial immunity), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971); Blackwell, 570 F.Supp. at 478-79 (immunity of probation officers); Richardson v. Grundel, 85 Ill.App.3d 46 , 40 Ill.Dec. 569 , 406 N.E.2d 575 (1980) (immunity of probation officer under Illinois law); see also Scott v. Dixon, 720 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir.1983) (…
cited Cited "see" Pope v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 394 F. Supp. 261, 263-65 (M.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ray v. Recovery Healthcare Corporation
N.D. Tex. · 2021 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that “a probation officer is entitled to the same protection [as prosecutors] when preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case”) and Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (declining to extend absolute immunity to a probation officer who incorrectly revoked the plaintiff’s probation because the probation officer “acted at her own initiative and at a different phase of the criminal process less intimately associated with the judiciary”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 949 (1984), with Ar…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hansen v. Kjellsen
S.D. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5thCir.1979); Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47 (2dCir.1994); Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172 (5thCir.1988); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155 (9thCir.1985); Tripati v. U.S.I.N.S., 784 F.2d 345 (10thCir.1986), cert. denied 484 U.S. 1028 , 108 S.Ct. 755 , 98 L.Ed.2d 767 (1988); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489 (11thCir.1984); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9thCir.1970), cert. denied 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 ; Turner v. Barry, 856 F.2d 1539 (D.C.Cir.1988). [¶ 13.] South Dakota court services officers perform functions which are very s…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Urban v. Henley
D. Kan. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1979) (court relies in part on decision granting parole officials absolute immunity in determining that federal probation officers are entitled to absolute immunity).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harlow v. Clatterbuck (2×)
Va. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1970) (probation officer immune from liability in submitting probation reports); see also Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1979) (probation officer immune from suit when investigating and preparing presentence report); Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Dept., 142 Ariz. 319 , 690 P.2d 38 (1984) (same); Hulsman v. Hemmeter Development Corp., 65 Hawaii 58 , 647 P.2d 713 (1982) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Crosby-Bey v. Jansson
D.D.C. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1979); Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231, 236 (3rd Cir.1977) (collecting cases); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 2217 , 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971); Hall v. Schaeffer, 556 F.Supp. 539 (E.D.Pa.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David Neil SPAULDING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas W. NIELSEN, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, and Henry Lucas, Jr., Deputy U.S. Probation Officer, Defendants-Appellees
78-2736.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 30, 1979.
599 F.2d 728
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12823
David Neil Spaulding, pro se., Michaelle F. Pitard, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Clark, Gee, Hill, Per Curiam.
Cited by 79 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This case presents the question whether a federal probation officer is immune from a suit for damages based on alleged misconduct in the investigation and preparation of a presentence report. Appellant Spaulding, the plaintiff below, brought a civil action seeking damages, as well as equitable and declaratory relief. He claimed that defendants Nielsen and Lucas were responsible for an incomplete and incorrect presentence report, [1] which denied him due process of law. The court below dismissed the action for[*729] failure to state a claim, holding that defendants were quasi-judicial officers and shielded from suits for damages by absolute immunity while acting in their quasi-judicial capacity. We affirm.

David Neil Spaulding pleaded guilty in 1973 to a charge of impersonating an FBI agent and was sentenced to three years probation, which was discharged without violation. He alleges that the presentence report was then, and is today, defective in that important information was excluded. Defendant Lucas was Spaulding’s supervisor during the latter part of this sentence. Then in 1976, Spaulding was charged with interstate transportation of stolen property. After a plea of guilty and prior to sentencing, Spaulding objected to the presentence report on the ground that the defective 1973 report had been submitted to the court by Lucas and that it was misleading and erroneous. Sentencing was reset, defendant Nielsen was allegedly informed of the omissions of Lucas, and Spaulding claims that he was assured by Nielsen and by the presiding judge that the omitted matters would be considered. But at sentencing Spaulding did not ask to examine the supplemented report. Spaulding now alleges that the presentence report was not corrected and that he was denied serious consideration for parole because of the erroneous and prejudicial report. He asks for damages of $86,000 from each defendant, for various injunctions against each defendant and their successors, and for a declaratory judgment that his constitutional rights were violated.

The district court’s dismissal of Spaulding’s damage claims against the federal probation officers was proper. Judges who act within the scope of their authority enjoy absolute immunity from damage suits. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). This immunity has been extended to prosecutors for their decision to prosecute and their conduct of the government’s case on the theory that these activities aré “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process . . .” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). We hold that a probation officer is entitled to the same protection when preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case. The report is an integral part of the sentencing process, and in preparing the report the probation officer acts at the direction of the court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32. We think it apparent that this narrow function is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” and thus, where, as here, the challenged activities of a federal probation officer are within this function, he or she is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages. [2] Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1970); Friedman v. Younger, 282 F.Supp. 710 (C.D.Cal.1968). See also Cruz v. Skelton, 502 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1974). Defendants’ activities were within this protected function, and the complaint seeking damages was properly dismissed.

Even though Nielsen and Lucas are immune from an action for damages, they are not necessarily immune from an action for equitable relief. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 315 n. 6, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). Spaulding’s claims for injunctive relief, however, are either moot or patently without merit. [3] He has been paroled, and Nielsen and Lucas have no role in his supervision. Moreover, the allegedly erroneous presentence report cannot harm[*730] his status as a pardee; Spaulding’s parole can be revoked only for a new violation.

Spaulding also argues on appeal that he stated a claim for relief in the nature of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A claim for unliquidated money damages, however, cannot be maintained under this statute, e. g., United States v. Pennsylvania, 394 F.Supp. 261, 265 (M.D.Pa.1975), and Spaulding’s claim for mandamus is also now moot. He apparently argues that the allegedly erroneous report would harm his chances for parole and asks us to require Nielsen and Lucas to perform their duty to prepare an accurate report. Spaulding has at this time successfully obtained his release on parole, and the presentence report will affect him only if he is convicted of a new offense. If that unfortunate event occurs, he will have ample opportunity, as he did below, to inspect and to challenge the report. See Shelton v. United States, 497 F.2d 156 (5th Cir. 1974).

Finally, by his failure to brief or argue the issue on appeal, Spaulding has abandoned any contention that the court below erred in denying declaratory relief. The order dismissing Spaulding’s complaint is

AFFIRMED.

1

. Spaulding allegedly informed Nielsen of the following errors made by Lucas:

1. An erroneous record of a conviction was listed.
2. A charge as to which prosecution was refused should have been removed.
3. Appellant’s mother and stepfather had not been interviewed, in either 1973 or 1977.
4. Appellant’s last employer was not contacted to confirm employment.
5. The employer and police officers were not contacted to confirm that appellant had not been a fugitive and was en route to surrender when arrested.
6. Appellant’s psychiatrist was not contacted to confirm animosity that existed between appellant and Lucas.
7. Facts that appellant’s difficulty in maintaining employment resulted from physical trauma and emotional disturbance were not presented.
8. Fact that his changes of address were fully approved was not presented.
9. Fact that appellant had tried to make restitution three times, prior to filing of complaint, was not presented.
2

. We have no occasion to decide today, and do not decide, whether immunity will shield probation officers from civil liability for official activities apart from the presentence report process.

3

. Spaulding asks that defendants and their successors in office, as well as “all other persons in active concert and participation with them,” be enjoined from any further use of the presen-tence report, from transferring him to any other institution during the pendency of this action without his written consent, and from communicating with the “U.S. Board of Parole” concerning this suit. He also asks that Nielsen and Lucas be enjoined from directly supervising him or from interfering with his supervision.