Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03260/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILv... D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Sta.t".!s Court of AppcalG Ter.th ('ir_-:ui~ 

APR l O 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

ROBERT WATERBURY, Clerk 

Defendant-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF KANSAS and MICHAEL F., 

POWERS, Morris County Attorney, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3260 

(D.C. No. 91-CIV-3205) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Robert Waterbury appeals the district court's dismissal of 

his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Mr. Waterbury alleges 

that the county attorney of Morris County, Kansas violated his 

right to equal protection of the laws when he decided not to bring 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3260 Document: 010110240420 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
perjury charges against a witness who had testified adversely to 

Mr. Waterbury in both a civil and a criminal case. The district 

court dismissed the suit after concluding that the prosecutor was, 

under the facts alleged by Mr. Waterbury, shielded from suit by 

the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 

424 U.S. 409 (1976). 

After granting Mr. Waterbury's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the 

district court. Whatever the scope of the doctrine of absolute 

prosecutorial immunity, it is beyond question that it shields a 

prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 

F.2d 1534, 1536 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 903 

(1992); Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1532 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Thus, section 1983 does not offer Mr. Waterbury relief from 

whatever adverse effects he may have suffered as a result of the 

prosecutor's decision. 

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The 

decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3260 Document: 010110240420 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2