2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-3-2005 

# Knight v . P orit z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1350

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Kni ght v . P oritz " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 263. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/263NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 1350 CU RTI S KN I GH T, A ppel l ant

v. D E B O R A H T . P O R IT Z ; P E T E R V E R N IE R O , F o rm e r A tto rn e yG e n e ra ls, in d iv id u a lly a n d i n th e i ro f

f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; THE O FF I CE O F ATTOR NEY GEN ERA L OF N EW J ERSEY, i n i t s o f

f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; THE O FF I CE O F THE ESS EX C OU NTY P RO S E CU T OR , i n i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; T HE CI T Y OF NE WARK, M UNI CI P AL I T Y, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; NEW AR K PO LI CE D EPARTM ENT, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; THE O FF I CE O F THE M I DD LESE X C OU NTY P RO S E CU T OR ’ S OF F I CE , i n i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; T HE E AS T BR UNS WI CK , M UNI CI P ALI TY, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; EAS T BR UNSWI CK PO L I C E D E PA R T M E N T , i n i t s offi ci al capa ci ty ; H E R B E R T H . T A T E , J R . , E s s ex C o u n ty P ro s e c u to r, i n d iv id u a lly a n d in h is o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity; C L IF F O R D M IN O R , J R ., Es s e x Cou n tyPr o s e c u t o r , i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; NO RM AN M ENZ, asst . pros. i nd i vidual l yand i n h i s offici al capac i ty ; L E S L IE M A N N , asst . pros. in d iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity ; JO H N R E D D E N , as st. p ro s. in d iv id u a llya n d in hi s offi ci al capa ci ty ; ST E PH E N J . T A Y L O R , as s t . pr os . i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al c a p a c i ty; S T E P H E N M A R G O L I S , a s s t . p r o s . i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; ANDR E W F RI E D, a s s t . p r o s . i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; AL AN A. R O C K O F F , M i d d l e s e x C o u n ty P r o s e c u t o r , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; F E L I X A . M A R T I N O , S u p e r i o rC o u r tJ u d g e , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty; J OH N M UR RA Y, ( e s t a t e ) i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; RU BEN CO N TR ER A S, i nd i vi du a l l ya nd i n h i s of fi c i a l c a pa c i ty ; W I LLI A M TH O M A S, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci ty ; M A R K W I L SO N , i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al c a p a c i ty ; RA SHI D SA BU R, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; STEVE B. SCOTT, in d iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity ; M . JA C K S O N , S G T ., in d iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity ; L O U IS E . G R E E N L E A F , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity ; M I CH AEL STI GI LAN O, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; KEI TH WI L KE RS ON, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty ; GE RA L DI NE BR ANDON , in d iv id u a llya n d in h e r o f f icia l ca p a c ity ; JA M E S P . M A R IN U C C I, in d iv id u a llya n d in h is offi ci al capa ci ty ; M A R I E R O B I N SO N , i ndi vi dual es t at e; E U G E N E C O D E Y , Super i or

C o u rt Ju d g e , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity2 _______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 00191) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember7, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , M cK E E and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember3, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM T his app eal ari ses fr om the d i sm i ssal of A pp el l ant C urt i s K night ’s com plai nt as a s anct i on forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. H e al s o appea l s fr om the di s m i s s al of hi s m al i ci ous prosecuti on cl ai m s agai nstD efen dan t s T at e, M enz, C on trer as, M urr ay , T ay l or, M argol i s, and M i nor . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of K ni ght ’ s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der dis m i ssi ng the ab ov e nam ed D efen dan t s. I. K ni ghts pentnear l yt en y ear s i n cus t odyforthe Sept ember1988 m ur derof G l enn B r ow n. Fol l ow i ng tw o s epar at e tr i al s , convi ct i ons , and s ubs equentr ever s al s , the Ess ex C ountyPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce di s m i s s ed the i ndi ctm enton O ct ober17, 2001. See St at e v.O n July1, 20 03 , the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed the clai m s agai nstD efen dan t s E ast 1 B runs w i ck Pol i ce D epart m ent , T ow ns hi p of EastB runs w i ck, K ei th W i l ker s on, and G e ra ld in e B ra n d o n . T h e se D e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n f

o r le a v e to d ism iss p a rties a n d to be exc us ed fr om fi l i ng a br i ef pur s uantt o L . A . R . 31. 2. K ni ghtdoes notappea l the dis m i ssal of the abo ve D efen dan t s, no r does he co ntes tthe m oti on . T he D efen dan t s’ m ot i on i s gr ant ed. 3 K ni ght , N o. A - 1370- 97T 4, s l i p op. ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. A pr . 2, 2001) ( r ever s i ng K ni ght ’ s s econd c onvi ct i on) r evi ew deni ed St at e v. K ni ght , 785 A . 2d 434 ( N . J . 2001) ( t abl e) ; St at e v. K ni ght , 661 A . 2d 298 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1995) ( r ever s i ng K ni ght ’ s fi r s tconvi ct i on) aff’ d St at e v. K ni ght , 678 A . 2d 642 ( N . J . 1996) . T hr ee mont hs a f ter th e d ism iss a l, K n ig h t f iled a p ro se c o m p lain t ag a in st m u lti p le S tate a n d C o u n ty defe ndant s al l egi ng num er ous cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons , m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, and vi ol at i ons underthe R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i on A ct( R I C O ) , 18 U . S. C . §§ 1962- 1964. H e r eques t s equi t abl e and monet aryr el i ef i n the aggr egat e amount of si x m i l l i on do l l ars . O n A pr i l 24, 2003, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s a maj or i tyof the D efe ndant s w i th t he exc ept i on of Ess ex C ountyas s i s t antpr os ecut orL es l i e M ann and hom i ci de i nves t i gat orM i chae l St i gi l ano, both of w hom al l egedl yfabr i cat ed and pl ant ed ev iden ce . T h e M ag istrate Ju d g e the n issue d an o rde r sch ed u li n g the c lose o f d isco v ery

1 f o r Ju ly6 , 2 0 0 4 . K n ig h t ap p e a re d f o r a sc h e d u led d e p o sitio n o n A p ril 1 4 , b u t re f u se d to be depos ed bec aus e the D efe ns e w oul d notpayforhi s tr avel expens es . O n J une 28, 2 0 0 4 , the M a g istra te J u d g e iss u e d a lette r-o rd e r d ire c tin g K n ig h t to a n sw e r a ll4

o u ts ta n d in g in te rr o g a to ri e s w ith in te n d a y s a n d a p p e a r f o r a d e p o s itio n w ith in o n e m o n th . P ri o r t o re c e iv in g th e o rd e r, K n ig h t f ile d a m o tio n to e x te n d th e c lo s e o f d is c o v e ry. D efe ndant s fi l ed obj ect i ons t o t he r eques t . K ni ghtr es ponded on J ul y15, cl ai m i ng that the D efe ndant s ’ att orney h a s d e c id e d w ith o u t m yin p u t h o w , w h e n a n d w h e re d is c o v e ry w o u ld p ro c e e d . . . . I t ake e xcept i on t o t he fa ctthatas a Pr o’ s e [s i c] pl ai nt i ff I ’ m bei ng puti n a p o sit ion o f h av ing to ad h ere to a d isco v eryp lan, or f ac e sa n cti o n s, w h ich w ere neverdi s cus s ed w i th oragr eed upon bym e. . . . I ’ m r eques t i ng thatthe C our tgr ant m yr eques tfora 90- dayext ens i on, and I fur therr eques tthatthe C our ts chedul e a c o n f e re n c e b e tw e e n a ll p a rt ie s a s s o o n a s p o s s ib le . T he M agi s tr at e J udge deni ed the mot i on on J ul y16, 2004, and r eaf fi r m ed the dat es s peci fi ed i n t he J une 28 or der . K ni ghtr ece i ved the or derdeny i ng hi s ext ens i on r eques ton J ul y20, the s ame dayhe w as s chedul ed t o appea rfora s econd de pos i t i on, for w h ich h e f

a iled to a tten d . D isc o v e ryo f f icia llyc lo se d o n Ju ly2 7 , 2 0 0 4 . K n ig h t f a iled to s at i s fythe or derbythatdat e. O n J ul y30, the D i s tr i ctC our tdocket ed and mai l ed an or der or i gi nal l yw r i t t en on J anuary6, 2004, s t at i ng thatdi s coverys houl d comm ence i m m edi at el yand s hal l cl os e atthe end of s i x m onths . K ni ghtr ece i ved the or derand a rg u e s th a t h e b e lie v e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c h a n g e d its m in d a n d g ra n te d th e e x te n s io n . W h e n K n ig h t d id n o t co m p lyw ith th e Ju n e 2 8 o rd e r, th e A p p e llee s f iled a m o tio n to d i s mi s s f o rf a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e . Kn i g h tn e v e rr e c e i v e d a c o p yo f th e mo t i o n . On N ovember4, 2004, adopt i ng a M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on and di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt . K ni ghtfi l ed a m oti on t o recon si der, w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed. K nightapp eal s.5 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and r evi ew the di s m i s s al of a compl ai ntunderFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 41( b) forabus e of di s cr et i on. Poul i s v. St at e Farm Fi r e & C as . C o. , 747 F. 2d 863, 868 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ; s ee a l s o B r ow n v. Phi l a. H ous . A uth. , 350 F. 3d 338, 342 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( appl y i ng the s ame st andar d t o the deni al of a mot i on t o vaca t e j udgm ent ) . A l though w e def ert o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on, di s m i s s al i s appr opr i at e onl yi n “l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . . . . ” Em er s on v. T hi el C ol l ege, 296 F. 3d 184, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n conduct i ng ourr evi ew , “w e w i l l be gui ded bythe m a n n e r in w h ich th e c o u rt b a lan c e d th e P o u lis f a c to rs a n d w h e th e r th e re c o rd su p p o rts its fi ndi ng. ” A l i v. Si m s , 788 F. 2d 954, 957 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . T he fa ct or s ar e: ( 1) the ext entof the party ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i ty ; ( 2) the pr ej udi ce t o the a d v e rsa ryc a u se d b yth e f a ilu re to m e e t sc h e d u lin g o rd e rs a n d re sp o n d to di s covery ; ( 3) a hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s ; ( 4) w hetherthe conduc tof the partyort he att orneyw as w i l l ful ori n bad fa i th; ( 5) the ef fec t i venes s of s anct i ons otherthan di s m i s s al , w hi ch ent ai l s an ana l y s i s of al t ernat i ve s anct i ons ; and ( 6) the m er i t or i ous nes s of the cl ai m ordefe ns e. Poul i s , 747 F. 2d at868. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s w i th r es pectt o fac t or s one, tw o and fi ve, eac h favor i ng di s m i s s al . W i th r es pectt o the thi r d fac t or , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe r ecor d s how s onl ya “l i m i t ed hi s t oryof noncompl i ance , ” butdi d noti dent i fy w hetherthi s fi ndi ng s upport s oroppos es di s m i s s al . R . & R . at2. H ow ever , the A ppel l ees conce de thatthi s l i m i t ed hi s t ory“w ei ghs l es s i n favorof di s m i s s al . ” A ppel l ees ’ B r . at18. W e agr ee.6

W e d o n o t agre e, ho w ev er, th at th e re co rd su p p o rt s a f ind ing that K n igh t’ s c o n d u c t w a s w ill f

u l o r in b a d f

a ith . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu siv e lysta tes th a t itis “evi dentthat[K ni ght ] . . . i s r es pons i bl e forw i l l ful l yr efus i ng t o compl yw i th the J une 28, 2004 or der . ” Let t erO p. , J an 4. 2005, at3. C onducti s w i l l ful i f i texhi bi t s s i gns of “inten ti o n al, ” “ str ateg ic or se lf-serv ing , ” b eh av ior. A d am s v . T r. o f N . J. B rew ery E m pl oy ees ’ Pens i on T rus tFund, 29 F. 3d 863, 875 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W hen dr aw i ng an in f e re n c e th a t co n d u c t is w ill f u l, w e g e n e ra llyre q u ire m o re th a n “ ‘f a ilu re to m o v e w ith the di s pat ch’ r eas onabl yexpec t ed of a partypr os ecut i ng a ca s e. ” I d. at876 ( ci t i ng D o n n ell yv . Jo h n s-M an v il le S ales C o rp., 6 7 7 F . 2 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 )); see also N at’l H ockeyL eague v. M etr o. H ockeyC l ub, I nc. , 427 U . S. 639, 643 ( 1976) ( fi ndi ng w i l l ful the fa i l ur e t o addr es s oppos i ng part i es ’ di s coveryr eques t s aft ers event een mont hs of el eventh- hourext ens i ons ) ; C . T . B edw el l & Sons, I nc. v. I nt ’ l Fi d. I ns . C o. , 843 F. 2d 683, 69 5 (3d C i r. 19 88 ) ( ho l ding w i l l ful pl ai nti ff’s fai l ure t o co m plyw i th thr ee cou rtorders , m u ltip le d is c o v e ry re q u e s ts , a n d in p a rt lyin g w ith re g a rd to th e re a s o n s ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nots peci fi cal l yexpl ai n w hyi tcons i der ed K ni ght ’ s conduct w i l l ful , buti tdi s cus s ed atl ength hi s fai l ur e t o adher e t o the J une 28, 2004 or der . K ni ght ar gued bef

or e the D i s tr i ctC our tthatpr i ort o the cl os e of di s coveryon J ul y6, he fi l ed a m o tio n to e x ten d th a t d a te b yn in e tyd a y s b e c a u se h e w a s u n a b le to tim e lyc o m p lyw ith the A ppel l ees ’ di s coveryr eques t s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yhel d thatthe mot i on for a n e x ten sio n o f

tim e w a s n o t in re sp o n se to th e Ju n e 2 8 o rd e r, b u t th e n ill o g ica lly7

concl uded thatthe r eques t“had nothi ng t o do w i th the” or der . T he J une 28 or derand K ni ght ’ s r eques tforan ext ens i on both r el at e t o the exa cts ame i s s ue, the compl et i on of di s covery , w hi ch i ncl udes the t aki ng of depos i t i ons and ans w er i ng i nt err ogat or i es . T hat K n ig h t’s in iti a l re q u e st w a s n o t a d ire c t re sp o n se to th e Ju n e 2 8 o rd e r is n o t re lev a n t to h is n e e d f o r a n a d d iti o n a l n in e tyd a y s to c o m p lete d isc o v e ry . F u rth e r, o n Ju ly1 5 , K n ig h t d id re sp o n d to th e Ju n e 2 8 o rd e r, re q u e stin g a sc h e d u lin g c o n f e re n c e a n d re n e w in g h is re q u e st f o r a n in e ty -d a ye x ten sio n . K n ig h t th e n w a ited f o r th e C o u rt to ru le o n h is m o ti o n . W h en the m o ti o n w as d en ied, K n igh t had o n lysev en d ay s to c o m p let e d isco v ery i n or dert o compl yw i th t he J une 28 or der , a t al l t as k fors om eone w ho j us tr eport ed the t as k w oul d t ake ni netyday s . A l though K ni ght ’ s fai l ur e t o compl et e di s coverybyJ ul y27 vi ol at ed a c our tor der , the r ecor d does nots uppor ta fi ndi ng of w i l l ful nes s orbad fa i th. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o found K ni ght ’ s r el i ance on the err oneous J ul y30, 2004 or der“unbel i evabl e” f

ortw o r eas ons . “Fi r s t , di s coverycomm ence d i n J anuary2004 and w a s s e t to c lo se in Ju ly2 0 0 4 . If th is h a d n o t b e e n th e c a se , itw o u ld h a v e m a d e little s ens e forpl ai nt i ff t o fi l e a mot i on t o ext end the cl os e of di s covery . ” Let t erO p. , J an. 4, 2005 at2. W e ar e ata l os s t o under s t and how the exi s t ence of a f i r s tdi s coveryper i od l as t i ng s i x m onths w oul d pr ecl ude a be l i ef thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw oul d gr antan ext ens i on per i od of equa l l ength. Second, the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned thatbeca us e the or deri s dat ed J anuary6 and r efe r s t o a s chedul i ng or derthatw as notatt ache d, K ni ght s houl d have r ecogni zed the err or . K ni ghtar gues thathe che cked the docke t , w hi chW e furthernot e thatw e fi nd extr emel ytr oubl i ng K ni ght ’ s fai l ur e t o r ece i ve 2 not i ce thathi s cas e w as fac i ng pos s i bl e di s m i s s al . Speci fi cal l y , w e poi ntt o the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s fai l ur e t o r es end the r eportand r ecomm endat i on aft erthe i ni t i al m ai l i ng w as 8 confi r m ed thatthe or derw as ent er ed on J ul y30, notJ anuary6. Fur ther , i n a l ett erdat ed A u g u st 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , K n ig h t re sp o n d e d to th e Ju ly3 0 o rd e r e x h ib iti n g a n o b v io u s b e lief in its corr ectnes s . Pr ocee di ng on a bel i evabl yval i d courtor derdoes nots uppor tan i nfer ence thatK ni ghti nt ent i onal l ydi s obey ed the C our t . T hus , the r ecor d fai l s t o s uppor tthe D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng that K night ’s con du ctw as w i l l ful. T his fact or w ei gh s agai nst d ism iss a l. F in a lly , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t K n ig h t’s c o m p lain t as se rts m er i t or i ous cl ai m s . T hi s fac t ori s neutr al and notdi s pos i t i ve, s ee Em er s on v. T hi el C ol l ege, 296 F. 3d at191, butw e ca nnoti gnor e thatK ni ghtpr ocee ds pr o s e and ha s s uffe r ed fr om t en y ear s of i ncar cer at i on r es ul t i ng fr om tw o tr i al s t ai nt ed bynum er ous err or s . See K ni ght , N o. A - 1370- 97T 4, s l i p op. at58. A l though “ea ch fa ct orneed notbe s at i s fi ed forthe tr i al courtt o di s m i s s a cl ai m , ” ther e exi s ther e onl ythr ee f act or s w hi ch th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e w e ig h in f a v o r o f d ism iss a l. W a re v . R o d a le Pr es s , I nc. 322 F. 3d 218, 221 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A ppl y i ng eac h fac t orequal l yand abi di ng bythe es t abl i s hed pr es um pt i on that“doubt s s houl d be r es ol ved i n favorof r eac hi ng a d ec isi o n o n the m erit s, ” se e S ca rbo rou g h v . E u b an k s, 7 4 7 F . 2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d ism iss in g K n ig h t’s c o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to pr os ecut e. W e now turn t o w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the named

2r eturned. W e have l ong hel d “thatas a gene r al pr act i ce a [s peci fi c] s anct i on s houl d not

be i m pos ed bya courtw i thoutpr i ornot i ce a nd s om e occ as i on t o r es pond. ” G agl i ar di v. M c W illia m s , 8 3 4 F .2 d 8 1 , 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). 9 D efen dan t s. III . W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t b a se d o n a b so lu te and qual i fi ed i m m uni tygr ounds . See St at e Farm M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. v. C ovi el l o, 233 F . 3 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W ith resp ec t t o p rose cu tors T ate, M en z, M arg o li s, T ay lor, and M i nor , eac h i s ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . See I m bl erv. Pachtm an, 424 F. 3d 409, 430- 31 ( 1976) . T he ac tof br i ngi ng an i ndi ctm ent , i ni t i at i ng pr os ecut i on even f ors us pect r eas ons , know i ngl yi ntr oduci ng fr audul entevi dence i nt o a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng, and fa i l i ng t o di s cl os e mat er i al evi dence ar e al l w i thi n the “tr adi t i onal funct i ons of an a dvocat e” a nd r ece i ve abs ol ut e pr ot ect i on. See K al i na v. Fl et cher , 522 U . S. 118, 127- 31 ( 1997) (i n d ictm en t and p rose cu ti o n ); D av is v. G ruse m ey er, 99 6 F . 2 d 6 1 7 , 6 3 0 n . 2 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (in tro d u c tio n o f

f ra u d u len t ev id e n c e ) a b ro g a ted o n o th e r g ro u n d s b yR o lo v . C ity I nves t i ng C o. L i qui dat i ng T rus t , 155 F. 3d 644 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; Sm i th v. H ol t z, 210 F. 3d 186, 199 n. 18 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( fai l ur e t o di s cl os e) ; K ul w i cki v. D aw s on, 969 F. 2d 1454, 1464 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( i ni t i at i ng pr os ecut i on “eve n w i thouta good fa i th bel i ef that w ro n g d o in g h a s o c c u rre d ” ). W e a lso a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t K n ig h t f a iled to a lle g e a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n a g a in s t in v e s tig a to r C o n tr e ra s . W e l as tturn t o t he di s m i s s al of i nves t i gat orM urr ay . K ni ghtar gues thatw henT he A pp el l ees ar gu e t hat K nightw ai ved this argum ent because he fai l ed to r ai se 3 it i n D istric t C o u rt. T h e A p p e llee s m isc o n stru e th e w a iv e r d o c trin e . K n ig h t ar g u e d in h is am end ed co m plai nt that M urr ay , w hil e serving as a com plai ning w i tness, present ed fa l se t es t i m onyt o t he gr and j ury . O n t he s ame day , he fi l ed a br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o the pr evi ous m ot i on t o di s m i s s ar gui ng thatnone of the D efe ndant s ar e i m m une fr om l i abi l i ty . T he A ppel l ees then fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai ntar gui ng t he sam e a ff irm ati v e d ef

en ses. K n igh t did n o t r esp o n d to this m o ti o n . H o w ev er, K n igh t’ s e a rlier p lea d in g s ra ise d th e a rg u m e n t th a t M u rra yp re se n ted p e rju re d tes tim o n yw h ile serving as a com plai ning w i tness and rej ect ed the prem i se that M urr ayi s i m m un e. T hu s, the i s s ue i s pr es erved des pi t e K ni ght ’ s fai l ur e t o expr es s l ycount erthe def ens e i n the s e c o n d m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . R e g a r d l e s s , M u rr a y i s e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. M urr aypresent ed tes t i m on yt o the grand juryhe w as doing so as a co m plai ning w i tness, w hi ch underM al l eyv. B r i ggs , 475 U . S. 335 ( 1986) , does notent i t l e hi m t o the pr ot ect i on of abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . I n K ul w i cki , w e expr es s l yr ej ect ed the ar gum entthatM al l ey 3 carved outan exc ept i on t o t he gene r al rul e announc ed i n B r i s coe v. L aH ue, 460 U . S. 325, 3 2 9 (1 9 8 6 ), th a t g o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss e s a re a f f o rd e d a b so lu te im m u n ityf o r sta tem e n ts m a d e w h ile te stif

y in g . K u lw ick i, 96 9 F .2 d a t 1 4 6 7 n .1 6 . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in dis m i ssi ng the clai m s agai nstthe ab ov e nam ed D efen dan t s. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng K ni ght ’ s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derw i l l be r ever s ed and the mat t err emanded forfur therpr ocee di ngs . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng T at e, M enz, M urr ay , T ay l or , M ar gol i s , and M i nori s aff i r m ed.