green
Positive treatment
22.1 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · 2 courts ·
…investigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor's case ... enjoy absolute immunity.
at p. 443
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bryant v. Rhodes
The Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bryant v. Rhodes
Cal. 1984) (“[A] prosecuting attorney acting within the scope of his or her duties in initiating and prosecuting a state’s criminal prosecution is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages for deprivation of constitutional rights.”) (citing Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Best v. Virgil Smith
Moreover, “[t]his immunity extends to related investigative 18 and administrative functions.” Herrold v Jagels, 8 F.3d 27 , 1993 WL 362218 (Table), at *2 (9th 19 Cir. 1993) (citing Schlegel v. Bebout, 841 F.2d 937, 944 (9th Cir. 1988) and Freeman v. Hittle, 20 708 F. 2d 442, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Howell v. Cook
Filing the criminal complaint was an essential part of instigating the criminal 24 prosecution and such conduct is entitled to absolute immunity.”) (citing Demery v. Kupperman, 25 735 F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 1984); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 26 675, 679 (9th Cir.1984); Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir. 27 1983)). 28 1 D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff
Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Broam v. Bogan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (holding that the prosecutor was absolutely immune to civil suit for damages when the investigator, acting under the authority of the district attorney's office, told the plaintiff's landlord that he was not getting as much rent from plaintiff's lease as he could get from someone else, because the investigator was performing an investigative function pursuant to the preparation of the prosecutor's case and within the scope of the prosecutor's duties in initiating and pursuing the state's case). 22 However, even after the in…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Broam v. Bogan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (holding that the prosecutor was absolutely immune to civil suit for damages when the investigator, acting under the authority of the district attorney’s office, told the plaintiffs landlord that he was not getting as much rent from plaintiffs lease as he could get from someone else, because the investigator was performing an investigative function pursuant to the preparation of the prosecutor’s case and within the scope of the prosecutor’s duties in initiating and pursuing the state’s case).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wu v. State Bar of California
See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 , 96 S.Ct. at 995 (holding that initiation of prosecution is essential function for which common law provides immunity from civil damages); Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (finding that prosecutor acting within scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing criminal prosecution is absolutely immune from civil money damages in section 1983 action alleging constitutional deprivations).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Herrold v. Jagels
See Schlegel v. Bebout, 841 F.2d 937, 944 (9th Cir.1988); Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kittye Grant Carrie Roberts v. Barry Foye Robert Burton Earl Robataille Carl Vidano Robert Orosco Robert Archer Phil Wigley Brian Gerald Jerry Turkeurst Michael Biggs Steven Overcast Randy Toburen, Robert Barwick v. Barry Foye Robert Burton Earl Robataille Carl Vidano Robert Orosco Robert Archer Phil Wigley Brian Gerald Jerry Turkeurst Michael Biggs Steven Overcast Randy Toburen
Furthermore, although we have held that absolute immunity can extend to investigations made at the behest of prosecutors, see Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983), plaintiffs might be able to survive summary judgment on this basis by demonstrating that defendants' actions are outside the scope of this protection.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Earl Edwin Gobel and Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa County, Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, and Frank Gary
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Freeman ex rel. the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983); Keating v. Martin, 638 F.2d 1121, 1122 (8th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar
We are aware that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that "... investigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor's case also enjoy absolute immunity." Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diana G. Schlegel and Central Pacific Freight Lines, an Oregon Corporation v. William Bebout and Bob Russell
(2×)
In Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983), we held that absolute immunity is accorded to investigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor's case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Keller v. United States
Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barbera v. Smith
It appears, then, that the Second Circuit does not follow the Ninth Circuit’s position, relied on by defendants in their argument, that “[ijnvestigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor’s case also enjoy absolute immunity.” Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam). *397 It is clear that the alleged conduct attributed to defendant Martin is not protected by the absolute immunity doctrine because training and supervision are administrative functions to which absolute immunity will not attach.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Lation Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern Ca O'malley, William A., Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for Contra Costa County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in His Capacity as Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
Quasi-judicial activities are not limited to post-indictment matters, but also include "[i]nvestigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor's case." Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Olagues v. Russoniello
Quasi-judicial activities are not limited to post-indictment matters, but also include “[ijnvestigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor's case.” Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stevens v. Rifkin
Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Condos v. Conforte
The Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Zank
(See Freeman, supra, 708 F.2d at p. 443 (investigative acts); Ybarra, supra, 723 F.2d at p. 679 (administrative acts).) And, in Demery v. Kupperman (9th Cir. 1984) 735 F.2d 1139, 1143-1144 , the Ninth Circuit held the actions of a prosecutor (a California deputy attorney general), in conferring with potential witnesses for the purpose of determining whether to initiate administrative proceedings to revoke a medical license, were part of the prosecutor’s case preparation, for which the prosecutor was absolutely immune, even if such actions could be characterized as administrative or investiga…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Demery v. Kupperman
In those cases, we held that that absolute prosecutorial immunity attaches to the actions of a prosecutor if those actions were performed as part of the prosecutor's preparation of his case, even if they can be characterized as "investigative" or "administrative." Freeman, 708 F.2d at 443 ("investigative" acts); Ybarra, 723 F.2d at 679 ("administrative" acts). 13 In Butz v. Economou, the Supreme Court held that officials performing the functions of a prosecutor in administrative proceedings are entitled to the absolute prosecutorial immunity described in Imbler.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Demery v. Kupperman
In those cases, we held that that absolute prosecutorial immunity attaches to the actions of a prosecutor if those actions were performed as part of the prosecutor’s preparation of his case, even if they can be characterized as “investigative” or “administrative.” Freeman, 708 F.2d at 443 (“investigative” acts); Ybarra, 723 F.2d at 679 (“administrative” acts).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village
Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village
Freeman on Behalf of the Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam). 13 Here Ybarra alleged that Malloy knowingly breached his duty to preserve exculpatory material and that such a breach constitutes a denial of due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Scales v. Lalli
See Freeman on Behalf of The Sanctuary v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442, 443 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hauptmann v. Wilentz
See, e.g., Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 442 (9th Cir.1983); Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450, 452 (2d Cir.1981); Marrera v. City of Hialeah, 625 F.2d 499, 507 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913 , 101 S.Ct. 1353 , 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981); Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff’d by equally divided Court per curiam, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981); Jacobson v. Rose, 592 F.2d 515, 524 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 2861 , 61 L.Ed.2d 298 (1979); Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 485, 488-89 (10th Cir.1977); Guerro v. Mulhearn, 4…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George FREEMAN, Individually and on Behalf of THE SANCTUARY, a Universal Life Church Monastery, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Leroy HITTLE, I.H. Redersen, Kazuo Watanbe, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
Leroy HITTLE, I.H. Redersen, Kazuo Watanbe, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
82-3383.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 13, 1983.
George W. Freeman, pro se., Christine Cary, Richard C. Robinson, Spokane, Wash., Mary Ann Condon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles S. Hamilton, III, Diane G. Geiger, Stafford, Frey & Mertel, Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellees.
Goodwin, Kennedy, Alarcon.
Cited by 33 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
George Freeman, individually and on behalf of The Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action. Freeman alleged that the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office deprived him of property without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,1985 and 1986, and interfered with his contractual relationship with his landlord. We affirm.
The district court correctly found that all four defendants were absolutely immune from suit. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
The complaint named as defendants the King County Prosecuting Attorney (Mal-eng), two Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys (Redkey, Evans), and an investigator for the Fraud Division of the Prosecuting Attorney’s office (Colwell). The complaint alleged that Colwell, acting under the authority of the Maleng’s office, told the plaintiff’s landlord that he was not getting as much rent from plaintiff’s lease as he could get from someone else.
Freeman claims that the purpose of the statement was to cause the landlord to terminate The Sanctuary’s lease, thereby depriving it of property without due process, He also contends that the statement wrongfully interfered with the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant.
A state prosecuting attorney acting within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of constitutional rights. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Investigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor’s case also enjoy absolute immunity. Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 485, 488-89 (10th Cir.1977); see also O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.1982).
The challenged actions of Maleng, Redkey, and Evans were within the scope of the prosecutor’s duties in initiating and pursuing the state’s case. They therefore have absolute immunity from damages under § 1983. Maleng’s involvement with Freeman and The Sanctuary was limited to the use of his title in the formal pleadings of the state criminal case pursued against Freeman. Evans, Redkey’s supervisor, did not participate in Redkey’s decision to pursue criminal charges against Freeman. Redkey, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, was responsible for Freeman’s prosecution. Thus, the district court correctly found that Maleng, Redkey, and Evans were entitled to absolute immunity from damages under Freeman’s § 1983 suit for deprivation of property without due process.
Affirmed.