Case ID: f-appx_463/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gustavo GARZA; Uvaldo Zamora; Individually David Martinez, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Juan Angel GUERRA, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-40727.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 28, 2012.
    Horacio L. Barrera, Attorney, Martinez & Barrera, L.L.P., Brownsville, TX, John Thomas Blaylock, Esq., Blaylock Law officers Harlingen, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees.
    Larry Logan Warner, Sr., Law Offices Of Larry Warner, Harlingen, TX, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons:

Appellant’s arguments are all answered by the record and the verdict of the jury. The contention that Appellant Guerra, as district attorney, had prosecutorial immunity falls before the finding that — acting in that official capacity — he intentionally and knowingly deprived the plaintiffs of their right and liberty to be free from arrest. The evidence supported that finding by proving that the defendant was personally responsible for false affidavits and charges to obtain the warrants for arrest of the three plaintiffs. Their deprivation of liberty was a constitutional violation without question. With the proven malice and lack of probable cause, defendant enjoyed no immunity. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). As this court has said: “Characterizing these actions as akin to those traditionally undertaken by officers of the court (which would entitle them to assert ... immunity) would make a mockery of the judicial system.” Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 975 (5th Cir.1983).

The damages awarded seem to be high, but after reading this record we are unable to say that reasonable jurors could not return this verdict.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court lias determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.