2006 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 12-21-2006 

# W re nch T r ansp S e r v . B r a d ley 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 . 05-3498

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " W r e nch T r an sp S e r v

. B r a dley " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 52. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/52Honora ble L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior District Judge f or the United States District Court of * the Easter n District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 05- 3498 WRE NC H T RA NS P OR T AT I ON SYSTEM S, I NC . , a n d J AM ES M ALONE, J R. A p p e llan ts

v. 

### FRAN K B RA DL EY ; J OHN F . KENN ED Y; MA RYANNE LE W I CKI ; LE AHANN M AC MA HO N

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( 95- cv- 06203) D i s t r i ctC our t : H on. J os e L. L i nar es A r gued M ar ch 28, 2006 B efore: M cK E E and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber21, 2006) C o n s ta n tin e B a rd is , ( A r gue d) 1800 M ai n St r eet Sout h B el m ar , N ew J er s ey07719 C o u n se l f

o r th e A p p e llan ts2

B ri a n G . F la n a g a n , ( A r gue d) O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al , N ew J er s ey 25 M arketSt r eet R i char d J . H ughes J us t i ce Com pl ex T r ent on, N ew J er s ey08625 C ouns el fort he A ppel l ees 

### Ro bert P. Sh ane Of ficeof the Att orney

General , New Je rs ey 25 Market

Stre et Richard J. Hug hes Justi ceCo m plex Tr e nt on, Ne w J e r s e y

08625 Co un se l for the App el le es OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. Ja m e s M a lo n e a n d W re n c h T ra n sp o rta tio n S y ste m s, In c ., (h e re in a f ter c o llec tiv e ly r efe rr ed t o as “M al one”) appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of N ew J er s eyD eputyA t t or ney s G ener al J ohn K ennedyand Leah A nn M cM ahon. For the r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l r ever s e i n par tand af fi r m i n par tand r emand forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. I. D is c u s s io n . B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e p a rties , itis n o t n e c e ss a ryto re itera te th e f a c ts orbackgr ound of thi s cas e exc epti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourdi s cus s i on. M al one arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in co n clud ing that K en n ed yan d M cM ah o n w ere ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni t y , and thatthe M agi s t r at e J udge err ed i n i s s ui ng a pr ot ect i ve3

o rd e r r a th e r t h a n re q u ir in g th e m to a n s w e r c e rt a in in te rr o g a to ri e s d u ri n g d is c o v e ry. M a lo n e ’s a rg u m e n t is p a rt ia lly p re m is e d u p o n th e c o n te n tio n th a t “ th e in itia l s e iz u re . . . w a s b a se d u p o n a C o m p lain t sig n e d b yso m e o n e w h o h a d n o k n o w led g e o f its c o n ten ts [and] the C om pl ai ntw as bas ed upon an a ffi davi t , aff i r m ed bys om eone w ho had no i dea [about ] w hathe w as aff i r m i ng. . . . [] ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at26. M al one ar gues thatthe se izu re itse lf

w a s im p ro p e r b e c a u se o f th is a lleg e d in f

irm ityin th e C o m p lain t. H e c lea rly m akes thi s ar gum entt o s t r engthen hi s r el i ance on Schr ob v. C at t ers on , 948 F. 2d 1402 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), w h e re th e in itia l s e iz u re w a s n o t p ro p e rl ya u th o ri z e d b yth e c o u rt . H ow ever , as w i l l become cl earfr om ourdi s cus s i on of Schr ob bel ow , w e bel i eve that abs ol ut e i m m uni t yext ends t o D efe ndant s ’ act i ons i n obt ai ni ng the w r i tof for fei tur e and sei zi ng M al on e’s t rucks. K enn edyand M cM aho n w ere therefore enti t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m att er o f law inso fa r as M alon e’s su itatt em p ts t o fin d them li ab le fo r th eir pre-se izure c o n d u c t. Schr ob , supra . A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t D e f e n d a n ts are en ti tl ed to ab so lute im m u n ityfo r seizing M alon e’s p rop erty , w e d o n o t agre e tha t th eir pos t - s ei zur e conduc ti s s i m i l ar l ypr ot ect ed. M al one’ s C om pl ai nti s dr aft ed i n r atherbr oad l anguage thati ncl udes the D efe ndant s ’ act i ons befor e the pr oper t yw as s ei zed a s w el l as thei rconductaft eri tw as s ei zed. T hus , i n or dert o pr oper l yr es ol ve thi s appea l , w e mustcompar t m ent al i ze the c o n d u c t th a t M a lo n e is b a s in g h is s u it u p o n . See Sc hr ob , 9 4 8 F .2 d a t 1 4 0 9 . M al on e’s C om plai nt al l eges:See Complaint at ¶ 36 (“After the Dec ember

30, 1993 interview, D efendants had no 1 basis to believe a

nd did not believe that criminal procee dings c ould succe ssfully be under taken ag ainst Wrench Tra

nsportation Sy stems, Inc. or James Malone in conne ction with the alleg ed waste oil scheme and had no intention of undertakingsuch proc eeding s.”); and Complaint at ¶ 38 (“D efendants’ intentional use of thecontinued forfeitureof Wrench' s vehicles to coerceMalone into cooperating with their c riminal investigation of third parties deprived Wrench . . . a nd Malone of property

without due proce ss of law, in violation of the F ourteenth Amendment . . ." .). 4 D ef en d an ts ha d n o inten ti o n o f p u rsuin g crim inal o r fo rfe itu re pr ocee di ngs agai ns tW r ench Tr ans por t at i on Sy s t ems, I nc. or J ames M al one. . . . I ns t ead, D efe ndant s i nt ended t o us e the for efe i tur e pr ocee di ngs t o coer ce M al one i nt o cooper at i ng w i t h the i nv est i gati on and providi ng i nfo rm at i on against [ o th e rs w h o ] w e re th e ta rg e t o f th e in v e s tig a tio n . C om pl ai ntat¶ 35. H ow ever , M al one’ s ar gum enton appea l focus es upon t he D efe ndant s ’ r efus al t o r etur n t he s ei zed pr oper t yonce he demonstr at ed hi s i nnocenc e, t he D efen dan t s’ at t em pt t o u se the p ropertyt o co erce J am es M al on e i nto t est i fy i ng against other s , and condi t i oni ng r etur n of the pr oper tyupon M al one’ s exec ut i on of a r el eas e. M a l o n e s t a t e s : “ [ t ] h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n . . . th a ti s a l l e g e d . . . [ i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y] r e f u s [ i n g ] t o r e m i tt h e W r e n c h v e h i c l e s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g th e i rk n o w l e d g e o f M a l o n e 's i nnocens e and thei ri m pr opercondi t i oni ng of the r eturn of the W r ench ve hi cl es on M al one' s pr ovi s i on of fa l s e t es t i m onyand a r el eas e. ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at21. T hat a ss e rtio n is c o n sis ten t w ith a lleg a tio n s o f p o st-s e izu re c o n d u c t in th e C o m p lain t. 1 I ti s cl earfr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on and the D efe ndant s br i ef thatthe di s put e overabs ol ut e i m m uni t ybefor e us turns on the al l egat i ons of m i s conduct r egar di ng t he s ei zed pr oper t yaft ert he s ei zur e, notact i ons M cM ahon and K ennedyt ook t o s ei ze the pr opert y . A ccor di ngl y , w e mustas s um e the D efe ndant s del i ber at el ydel ay edIn re viewingtheDi stric t Co ur t’ s gra nt o f s umm ary

judgme nt to D e fend ants , w emus t 2 a ssumethat all o f M a lon e ’s a lle g atio ns aretr ueand a ff ord M a lon ethebene fi t of a ll re a so na

ble inf e renc e s b a se d u

po n th os ea lle g atio ns . Wethen d e te rm ineif De fend ants aree nti tle d to judgment as a matter

of law. See Serbin v. Bora Corp., Ltd., 96 F.3d 66, 68 n.1 ( 3d Cir. 1996). To thee xtent th at Malon eis a rguingthat Ke nn e dy

and Mc Ma ho n a reno t e nti tle d to 3 either a bsolute or qualified immunity , Appellants’ a rgument is meritless, and ca n be re jected without discussion. See Schrob , infra. 5 r etur ni ng M al one’ s pr oper t yaft erconcl udi ng thathe w as noti nvol ved i n t he i l l egal conductt heyw er e i nves t i gat i ng, t hattheycondi t i oned r eturni ng the pr oper t yupon M al one exe cut i ng a r el eas e, and thattheyal s o att empt ed t o us e thei rcont i nued pos s es s i on o f th e p ro p e rtyto c o e rc e Ja m e s M a lo n e in to tes tify in g a g a in st o th e rs. W e m u st d e c id e if 2 a n yo f th e se a c tio n s a re c o v e re d b yth e d o c trin e o f a b so lu te im m u n itya s o p p o se d to q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. 3 A . A b s o l u t e a n d Q u a l i f i e d I m m u n i t y. T he Supr eme C our tfi r s taddr es s ed pr os ecut or i al i m m uni t yfr om s ui tunder§ 1983 i n I m bl erv. P achtm an , 424 U . S. 409 ( 1976) . T he pl ai nt i ff ther e w as a convi ct ed m ur der erw ho s ued the pr os ecut orand other s under§ 1983 ar gui ng thatthe pr os ecut or h a d u s e d f

a b ri c a te d te s tim o n ya n d w ith h e ld e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e to o b ta in th e c o n v ic tio n . T he C our thel d “ t hati n i ni t i at i ng a pr os ecut i on and i n pr es ent i ng the St at e' s cas e, the pr os ecut ori s i m m une fr om a ci vi l s ui tfordamages under§ 1983. ” Id . a t 4 3 1 . W e di s cus s ed Im bler i n Schr ob . Schr ob ow ned an i nt er es ti n a bus i nes s and br oughta ci vi l r i ght s act i on agai ns tdrug enfor cementoffi ci al s and a f eder al pr os ecut or (C a tters o n ) to re c o v e r f o r c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s th a t alle g e d lya ro se f ro m th e c iv ilIn Schrob , the plaintiff sued under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of 4 Narcotics , 4 03 U. S. 3 88 (1 97 1) . H e re , M a lon esu e d und e r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 . H ow e ver, thereis no distinction for purposes of our analysis. See Schrob , 948 F.2d. at 1409 (“c ourts have g e nerally re lie d u po n th eprinc ipl e s d e ve lop e d in thec a selaw a

pp lyingse c tio n 1 98 3 toe sta bli sh the outer limits of a Bivensclaim ag ainst federal off icials. It would be untenableto draw a distinction for purposes of immunity law . . .”) . In rem forf

eiture is base d on the fiction that the property itself is guilty

of a c rime. 5 Schrob , 948 F.2d at 1411. In Schrob , we refuse d to disti nguish between the prosecutor' s more tra dition a l roleand

his analog ou s rolein t

hec ivi l in rem proce edingat issue. 6 for fei tur e of Schr ob’ s pr opert y . C at t er s on had know i ngl ym ade f al s e s t at ement s w hen he 4 appea r ed bef

or e a M agi s t r at e J udge t o r eques ta w arr antt o s ei ze pr oper t ythatSchr ob had an i nt er es ti n. A ft erobt ai ni ng a for fei tur e w arr antand s ei zi ng the pr oper t y , Schr ob m et 5 w i th C at t er s on and “de m ons t r at ed the l egi t i m acyof hi s i nves t m enti n [the s ei zed p rop erty ]. ” 9 4 8 F . 2 d at 14 0 6 . T h ere af ter, S ch rob su ed C att erso n all eg ing “tha t th e re turn of [hi s pr opert y ] w as undul ydel ay ed bec aus e C att er s on demanded . . . a r el eas e fr om per s onal l i abi l i t yforhi s act i ons r el at ed t o t he s ei zur e. ” Id . at 14 0 6 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed C at t er s on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s on gr ounds of abs ol ut e i m m uni t yand C at t er s on a p p e a le d . O n appea l , w e bega n bycompar t m ent al i zi ng ouri nqui r yand foc us i ng on eac h of the al l egat i ons of m i s conduct . W e l ooked atthe dr aft i ng and fi l i ng of the i n r em compl ai nt , act i ons t aken t o pr epar e and a ppl yforthe s ei zur e w arr ant , part i ci pat i on i n t he ex p a rte hear i ng t o obt ai n t he w arr ant , and “a ct i ons s urr oundi ng the s ei zur e, r et ent i on and r el eas e of the [s ei zed] pr opert y . ” Id . at1409. W e hel d t hatabs ol ut e i m m uni t yext ended t o C at t er s on’ s act i ons i n cr eat i ng and7

fi l i ng the i n r em compl ai ntbeca us e thatw as partof hi s “pr os ecut or i al funct i on. ” Id . at 1409. W e conc l uded thatC att er s on’ s act i ons “i n appea r i ng befor e a j udge and pr es ent i ng e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f

a se a rc h w a rra n t ap p lica tio n c lea rlyin v o lv e th e p ro se c u to r’s ro le as advoca t e fort he St at e, r athert han hi s r ol e as admi ni s t r at orori nves t i gat i ve off i cer . ” Id . at1419 ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . O uranal y s i s w as gui ded byt he i m por t ance of ens ur i ng t hata pr os ecut or ’ s di s cr et i on r emai n unfett er ed byconce r ns of per s onal l i abi l i t ys o t hathe/ s he w oul d exer ci s e hi s /herbes tj udgm enti n “dec i di ng w hi ch s ui tt o br i ng and i n conduct i ng t hem i n cour t . ” Id . at1410 ( quot i ng I m bl er , 424 U . S. at 4 2 4 -2 5 ). H o w e v e r, w e h e ld th a t C a tters o n ’s m a n a g e m e n t o f th e se ize d p ro p e rtyw a s o n ly cover ed byqual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e thos e ac t i ons w er e “notdi r ect l yr el at ed t o t he j udi ci al pr oces s . I ns t ead, he w as act i ng i n an admi ni s t r at i ve r ol e. ” Id . a t1 4 1 9 . We rea so n ed that “[ q ]ua li fied im m u n ityw il l pro v ide s u ff ici en t pro tecti o n to the p rose cu tor’s m anage m entof the pr oper t y . ” Id . O uranal y s i s i n Schr ob f o c u se d o n th e f

a c t th a t Im bler “r ecogni zed thatthe pr os ecut or ' s r ol e as an advoc at e mayt ake the pr os ecut orbey ond t he conf i nes of the cour tr oom . ” 948 F. 2d at1414. A ccor di ngl y , the l i ne betw een a bs ol ut e and qua l i fi ed im m u n ity c o u ld n o t d e p e n d o n th e f o ru m in w h ic h th e c h a lle n g e d c o n d u c t o c c u rr e d . R athe r, w e d ist ing u ishe d b etw ee n “p u relyinv esti g ati v e m att ers,” an d tho se th at m o re c lo s e ly re s e m b le d th e tr a d itio n a l p ro s e c u to ri a l r o le . Id . W e c o n clud ed that C att erso n ’s8

act i on s i n seeking the w arr ant w ere t antam ou nt t o p repar i ng t o p res ent a case as a pr os ecut orand thatC att er s on w as ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni t yforact i ons t aken i n that capa ci ty . T heyw er e “e ncompass ed w i t hi n t he pr os ecut or ' s advoca cyfunct i on. ” Id . at 1 4 1 6 . G iv e n th a t an a lytica l f ra m e w o rk , w e re a d ilyd isp o se d o f a lleg a tio n s o f

liab ili ty bas ed upon C att er s on' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he s ei zur e hea r i ng. E ven though Schr ob had a l l e g e d t h a tCa t t e r s o n o n l yo b t a i n e d th e wa r r a n tb yr e s o r t i n g t o “ a b a l d f a c e d l i e , ” we h eld th at C att erso n w as a b so lutelyim m u n e f rom su itb ase d u p o n h is co n d u ct i n co u rt e v e n if h e h a d in te n tio n a lly m is le d th e c o u rt in s e iz in g S c h ro b ’s p ro p e rt y . W e th e n a d d re ss e d S c h ro b ’s f in a l se t o f

a lleg a tio n s. T h e yin c lu d e d c laim s th a t C at t er s on w as l i abl e fort he del ayi n r eturni ng the s ei zed pr oper t y , and demandi ng a re le a s e . Id . at1417. W e r ej ect ed C at t er s on' s cl ai m of abs ol ut e i m m uni t yforthes e ac t i ons beca us e theydi d notbeara s uffi ci entnexus t o t he under l y i ng goal of fr eei ng the

“‘ j ud i ci al process’from t he h aras sm ent and i nti m i dati on associ at ed w i t h li t i gati on , . . . ". Id . at 14 1 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e d elayin return ing the p rop erty , an d d em an d s fo r a rel ease/ i nd em nifi cat i on w ere “not di rect l yrel at ed to the judi ci al process. " Id . at1419. A lth o u g h “the d ec isi o n to relea se th e p rop erty. . . inv o lve[ d ] pro sec u tori al discre ti o n [,]” thatdi s cr et i on w as nots uffi ci ent l yr el at ed t o t he j udi ci al pr oces s t o w arr antthe pr ot ect i on of abs ol ut e, as oppos ed t o qual i fi ed, i m m uni t y . “[W ] hen a pr os ecut oract s out s i de of the ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s h e a c ts o u ts id e th e p ro te c tio n o f a b s o lu te im m u n ity . . .” . Id . at14209

(i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A l though Schr ob a t f

irst a p p e a rs to b e “ o n a ll fo u rs” w ith th e D e f e n d a n ts’ p o sts ei zur e conduc ther e, t her e ar e s om e i m por t antdi s t i nct i ons . I n Schr ob , the in it ial seizu re w as in v ali d , an d that inf luen ce d o u r an aly sis. W e n o ted, “the seizu re o f S ch rob ’s p ro p e rty. . . w a s n o t au th o riz e d f ro m th e o u tse t, . . . A c c o rd in g ly , the . . . p ro p e rtysh o u ld have be en i m m edi at el yr el eas ed. ” Id . a t 1 4 2 0 . N e v e rt h e le s s , Schr ob is q u ite h e lp f u l to the pr es enti nqui r y . M or eover , w e r ece nt l yampl i fi ed ouranal y s i s i n Schr ob i n Y ar r is v. C ou nty of

D el aw are , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he pl ai nt i ff i n Y

arris had bee n convi ct ed of r ape/m ur derand s ent ence d t o death, butw as eventual l yexoner at ed byD N A t es t i ng. H e ther eaf t ers ued the pr os ecut oral l egi ng thathi s convi ct i on r es ul t ed fr om t he pr os ecut orw i t hhol di ng evi dence and manufactur i ng tes tim o n yth a t h a d b e e n in tro d u c e d a t trial. T h e p ro se c u to r a rg u e d th a t h e w a s a b so lu tely im m u n e f

ro m liab ili tya n d m o v e d to d ism iss . A lth o u g h w e a g re e d th a t co n d u c t re late d to the ac tual pr os ecut i on of Y arr i s w as pr ot ect ed byabs ol ut e i m m uni t y , w e hel d t hatthe p ro se c u to r w a s o n lye n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityf o r c o n d u c t th a t w a s p rim a rily i nv est i gati ve o r adm i nis t rat i ve in nature. “‘A prosecutor ' s adm i nis t rat i ve d uti es and those i nves t i gat or yfunct i ons t hatdo notr el at e t o an advoc at e' s pr epar at i on forthe i ni t i at i on of a p r o s e c u t i o n o rf

o rj u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s [ ] ’ ” a r e e n t i t l e d o n l y t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. Y a r r is , 465 F. 3d at135 ( quot i ng B uckley v. F i t zsi m m on s, 5 0 9 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 7 3 (1 9 9 3 )) . W e a g a in e x p lain e d th a t ab so lu te im m u n ity“ e x ten d s to a c ts th a t ar e ‘in tim a tely10

as s oci at ed w i t h t he j udi ci al phas e of the cr i m i nal pr oces s , s uch as i ni t i at i ng a pr os ecut i on and . . . pr es ent i ng t he St at e’ s cas e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng I

m bl er , 4 2 4 U .S . a t 4 3 0 -1 ). T h u s , o u r i n q u ir yh e re m u s t f o c u s o n “ th e n a tu re o f

th e f u n c tio n p e rf

o rm e d , . . .” . Ka lin a v . F le tc h e r, 522 U . S. 118 ( 1997) . O urdi s cus s i on i n Y a rr is e x e m p lif

ie s th is f o c u s . T her e, w e r el i ed upon the di s t i nct i on betw een nondi s cl os ur e of e vi dence on t he one ha nd, an d d estruc ti o n o f e v iden ce o n the o ther. T h at disti n cti o n w as n o t bas ed u p o n the m o re egr egi ous natur e of the l att er . R ather , i tw as r oot ed i n t he r el at i ons hi p of ea ch ac tt o the j udi ci al pr oces s as w el l as t he natur e of the pr os ecut or i al funct i on. N ondi s cl os ur e w as cov ered byabsolut e i m m un i t yand dest ruct i on of ev i den ce byqu al i fi ed im m un i t ybecau se

“ [ u ]n lik e d e c isio n s o n w h e th e r to w ith h o ld e v id e n c e f ro m th e d e f

e n se , d e c isio n s to des tr oyevi dence ar e notr el at ed t o a pr os ecut or ' s pr os ecut or i al funct i on. ” Y a rr is , 465 F. 3d a t 1 3 6 . [O ] nce the dec i s i on i s m ade nott o furni s h evi dence t o t he

defe ns e, no addi t i onal p ro tec tib le p ro se c u to ria l d isc re tio n is i nvol ved i n deci di ng t o di s pos e of i t , and . . . , w hi l e dec i di ng nott o furni s h t he pr os ecut i on’ s evi dence t o t he def ens e may be an a ctof advoc acy , thr ow i ng the evi dence aw ayi s nots uch a n a c t. I d. at136- 7 ( quot i ng W

ilk in s o n v . E llis , 4 8 4 F . S u p p . 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 8 3 (E .D . P a ., 1 9 8 0 )) . W e a lso h e ld th a t ab so lu te im m u n ityd id n o t ex ten d to th e p ro se c u to r' s re sp o n se to Y a rris’ s re q u e st f

o r D N A tes tin g . T h e p ro se c u to r d id n o t es tab lish th a t “h is re sp o n se to Y arr i s ’ s D N A t es tr eques t s w as par tof [hi s ] advoca cyforthe s t at e i n pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch [he w as ] per s onal l yi nvol ved. ” Id . at 1 3 8 . A b se n t th a t re latio n to11

pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs , t hos e ac t i ons l acke d a s uffi ci entnexus t o t he j udi ci al p ro c e ss to e n tit le th e p ro se c u to r to a b so lu te im m u n ity . In ste a d , the a c tio n s w e re p ro p e rly c la s s if ie d a s a d m in is tr a tiv e o r i n v e s tig a tiv e ; th e yw e re n o t p ro s e c u to ri a l. A cc o rdin g ly , “[ a]b so lute im m u n ityap p li es to the a d v ersa ri al ac ts of p rose cu tors d u ri n g p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p ro c e e d in g s . . . w h e re th e p ro s e c u to r i s p e rs o n a lly in v o lv e d . . . and cont i nues hi s r ol e as an advoc at e, ” but“w her e the r ol e as advoca t e has noty etbegun . . . o r w h e re it h a s c o n c lu d e d , a b s o lu te im m u n ity d o e s n o t a p p ly.” Id . at137 ( ci t at i ons an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I n Y a rr is , w e di d notr es ol ve the pr os ecut or ’ s l i abi l i t yforal l egedl ym anufa ctur i ng a fa l s e conf

es s i on beca us e, abs entaddi t i onal fac tfi ndi ng, w e coul d notdet erm i ne w hetherhe w as act i ng as t he s t at e' s advoca t e i n pr epar i ng fortr i al w hen the conf es s i on w a s a lle g e d ly o b ta in e d . Id . at 13 9 (th e “ k eyq u esti o n is w h ethe r th e A D A s w ere funct i oni ng as t he s t at e' s advoca t es w hen theyengage d i n t he conduc tthatgave r i s e t o t he e v id e n c e -f

a b ri c a tio n a lle g a tio n s .” ). G i ven thi s anal yt i cal fr amew or k, i tbecomes cl earthata pr os ecut or ’ s r ol e of appea r i ng befor e a j udge and pr es ent i ng evi dence i n s uppor tof a w arr anti m pl i cat es t he pr os ecut i ng att or ney ’ s r ol e as an advoc at e forthe s t at e r atherthan “hi s r ol e as ‘ an admi ni s tr at orori nves t i gat i ve off i cer . ’ ” B ur ns v. R eed , 5 0 0 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 9 1 (1 9 9 1 ). W e r eal i ze, of cour s e, t hatal m os tanyact i on a pr os ecut ort akes w i t hi n t he s cope of hi s /herempl oym enti s ar guabl yunder t aken pur s uantt o hi s /herr ol e as an advoc at e fort he12

sta te. “ A lm o st a n ya c tio n b ya p ro se c u to r, in c lu d in g h is o r h e r d ire c t p a rticip a tio n in p u re lyin v e stig a tiv e a c tiv ity , co u ld b e sa id to b e in so m e w a yre late d to th e u lti m a te d e c isio n w h e th e r to p ro se c u te, b u t [ th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s] n e v e r in d ica ted th a t ab so lu te im m u n ityis th a t ex p a n siv e . R a th e r, as in Im bler , w e i nqui r e i nt o w hetherthe pr os ecut or ' s act i ons ar e cl os el yas s oci at ed w i t h t he j udi ci al pr oces s . ” B u r n s , 500 U . S. at 4 9 5 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A s t he C our texpl ai ned i n B uckley , “ [ t ] h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n th e a d v o c a t e 's r ol e i n eval uat i ng evi dence and i nt ervi ew i ng w i t nes s es as he pr epar es fortr i al , on t he one hand, and the det ect i ve' s r ol e i n s ear chi ng forthe cl ues and corr obor at i on thatm i ghtgi ve hi m pr obabl e ca us e t o r ecomm end thata s us pectbe arr es t ed, on t he otherhand. ” 509 U . S. at273. T her e, t he C our tw as s peaki ng of the di s t i nct i on betw een i nves t i gat i on and p ro s e c u tio n , b u t th e lin e th e C o u rt d re w is q u ite h e lp f u l h e re . M al on e’s sui tres t s upo n all egati on s of co nd uct r egardi ng a rel ease that ar e m ost a c c u ra telyc las sif

ied a s p u re lyin v e stig a tiv e in n a tu re . T h a t co n d u c t w a s n o t ti e d to pr os ecut i ng a ca s e aga i ns tJ ames M al one orW r ench, norcan i tbe mai nt ai ned thatthe d e f e n d a n ts h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to p ro se c u te th e m g iv e n th e a lleg a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t. “A pr os ecut ornei t heri s , nors houl d cons i derhi m s el f t o be, an advoc at e bef or e he ha s pr obabl e ca us e t o have a ny one arr es t ed. ” B u c k le y , 50 9 U . S . at27 4. In at t em pti ng t o u se M al one’ s pr oper t yt o for ce J ames M al one t o t es t i fyagai ns tot her s , K ennedyand M cM ahon w er e func t i oni ng as i nves t i gat or s out s i de of the j udi ci al pr oces s , notas13

p ro s e c u to rs in s id e o f

it. Id . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e ya r e e n t i t l e d t o n o g r e a t e rp r o t e c t i o n th a n we w o u ld a f f o rd p o lice o f

f ice rs e n g a g e d in sim ilar c o n d u c t. T h e D e f e n d a n ts’ “ im m e d iate purpos e w as t o conducta more t hor ough i nves t i gat i on of the cr i m e- - nott o r eturn an i ndi ctm entagai ns ta s us pectw hom ther e w as al r eadypr obabl e ca us e t o arr es t . ” Id . at275. B ya n a lo g y , w e n o te th a t th e p ro se c u to r’s ro le a s le g a l co u n se l to th e p o lice is enti t l ed o nlyt o q uali fi ed im m un i t yeven tho ug h it , l i ke the r ole of adv ocate, cou l d ex po se th e p ro se c u to r to b u rd e n so m e lit ig a tio n a s a re su lt o f h is/h e r o f

f icia l ac tio n s w h ile re p re se n tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e d o c trin e o f q u a lifie d im m u n ityis n o t in ten d e d to sh ield o n e f u n c tio n in g a s a p ro se c u to r f ro m a ll ex p o su re to liab ili tya risin g f ro m “ o f f icia l” a c tio n s. A s w e h a v e e x p lain e d , alth o u g h its a p p lica tio n is to th e p e rso n o f th e d e f e n d a n t, th e d o c tr in e ’s u n d e rl y in g c o n c e rn is w ith th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s its e lf. Fo rr e ste r v . W h ite , 484 U . S. 219, 224 ( 1991) ( percur i am). T hati s w hyanydi s cus s i on of the appl i cabi l i t yof abs ol ut e i m m uni t ym us tfocus on t he “na tur e” a nd “func t i on” of the ac t , notthe “a ct i t s el f. ” Schr ob , 948 F. 2d at1408. T hi s focus w as evi denti n Schr ob w her e w e obs erved that , gi ven the i m pr opr i et i es i n the or i gi nal s ei zur e, t he j udi ci al pr oces s “[di d] nots erve as an ade quat e che ck on a pr os ecut or ’ s act i ons . . . . ” 948 F. 2d at1420. T he di s cus s i on i n I m bl er , rec o g n ize d th a t: [ v ]a rio u s p o st-tria l p ro c e d u re s a re a v a ilab le to det erm i ne w hetheran ac cus ed has r ece i ved a f ai rtr i al . T hes e .

. . in c lu d e th e re m e d ial p o w e rs o f th e trial ju d g e , ap p e llate r evi ew , and the s t at e and f eder al pos t - convi ct i on col l at er al r emedi es . I n al l of thes e the att ent i on of the r evi ew i ng j udge o r trib u n a l is f

o c u se d p rim a rilyo n w h e th e r th e re w a s a f a ir14 tr ia l u n d e r l a w . 424 U . S. at427. T he ava i l abi l i t yof pos s i bl e r emedi es w as i m por t antbeca us e i taddr es s ed the conc ern t hatt he pr os ecut or ’ s “foc us s houl d notbe bl urr ed byeven the s ubcons ci ous know l edge thata pos t - t r i al deci s i on i n favorof the ac cus ed mi ghtr es ul ti n t he p ro s e c u to r's b e in g c a lle d u p o n to re s p o n d in d a m a g e s f o r h is e rr o r o r m is ta k e n ju d g m e n t.” I m bl er , 424 U . S. at427. M al one al l eges t hathe and hi s at t orneym etw i t h K ennedyand M cM ahon ar ound D ece m ber30, 1993, t o di s cus s M al one’ s i nvol vementi n t he s cheme t o s el l w as t e oi l as v irg in f u e l o il. K e n n e d yse n t a le tter e sta b lish in g th e d a te a n d tim e o f th e m e e tin g a s w e ll as the t erm s on w hi ch i tw oul d t ake pl ace . T he l et t ers t at ed: “i f I am not s at i s fi ed fr om M r. M a lo n e ’s s tate m e n t th a t h e a n d W re n c h a re in n o c e n t o f a n yc rim in a l in v o lv e m e n t, th e n I w ill n o t r e c o m m e n d d is m is s a l o f th e f o rf e itu re c o m p la in t.” A p p . a t 9 0 4 . T h ere is a d ist inct d iffe ren ce b etw ee n co n v ersa ti o n s tha t occ u r i n p rep ara ti o n fo r a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng and negot i at i ons thatoccurconce r ni ng the r eturn of s ei zed ve hi cl es once pr os ecut or s concl ude thatt heyhave s ei zed pr oper t yfr om s om eone w ho w as not inv o lved in crim inal co n d u ct. In M ayo f 1 9 9 5 , M cM ah o n o ff ere d to return M alon e’s r emai ni ng t ankeri f M al one w oul d r el eas e the s t at e of N ew J er s eyand i t s empl oy ees fr om a ll c la im s o f

lia b ility. A p p . a t 5 3 6 . T h a t n e g o tia tio n w a s n o t p a rt o f th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s . R ather , i tw as admi ni s t r at i ve i n natur e. I n del ay i ng r eturn of the truck unt i l M al one exec ut ed a r el eas e, K ennedyand M cM ahon w er e cl ear l yact i ng out s i de the par amet er s of15

th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s , a n d o u ts id e o f th e irro le a s p ro s e c u to rs . S e e Im b le r, 424 U . S. at419 ( quot i ng Sch eur v. R ho des, 4 1 6 U . S . 2 3 2 , 2 3 8 -39 (19 7 4 )). T heyw er e ac t i ng m or e i n t he ca paci t yof i nves t i gat or s ori n t he admi ni s t r at i ve capa ci tyof cus t odi an of pr opert yi n r et ai ni ng M al one’ s trucks and us i ng them t o get Ja m e s M a lo n e to tes tifya g a in st o th e rs. W e re c o g n ize th a t th o se a c tio n s w e re tak e n in co n n ec ti o n w ith their role as p rose cu tors. N ev erthe less, tho se a cti o n s d o n o t bea r a s uffi ci entnexus t o t he under l y i ng goal of fr eei ng the “‘ j udi ci al pr oces s ’ fr om the har as s m entand i nt i m i dat i on as s oci at ed w i t h l i t i gat i on, . . . ” Schr ob , 948 F. 3d at1418, th a tl i e s a tt h e h e a r to f

t h e p r o t e c t i o n s a f

f o r d e d u n d e rth e d o c t r i n e o f a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. T he di s cr et i on i nvol ved i s nots o r el at ed t o t he j udi ci al pr oces s thati ti s ent i t l ed t o t he p ro te c tio n a f

f o rd e d b yth a t d o c tr in e . See Id . a t 1 4 2 0 . T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof M cM ahon and K ennedybas ed upon the conc l us i on thattheyw er e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om the al l egat i ons t hatt heydel ay ed r etur n of M al one’ s pr oper t yand condi t i oned i tupon exec ut i on of a r el eas e. W e do, how ever , agr ee thatM cM ahon and K ennedyar e ent i t l ed to su m m a ryju d g m e n t in so f a r a s M a lo n e a ttem p ts to re st liab ili tyo n th e ir a lleg e d a ttem p ts to f o rc e J a m e s M a lo n e to p ro v id e f a ls e te s tim o n y . B. Al l e g a t i o ns o f

Coe r c e d Fa l s e Te s t i mon y. T here i s no ev i den ce on t his recor d thatK enn edyor M cM aho n reque st ed fa l se tes tim o n yf

ro m Ja m e s M a lo n e in e x c h a n g e f o r th e re lea se o f

h is v e h icle s. Jo h n F rie ri,16

M al one’ s form ercouns el , s t at ed i n hi s aff i davi tthatI nves t i gat orB r adl eys ai d, “M al one w o u ld h a v e to p ro v id e tes tim o n ya g a in st s o m e o n e h ig h e r u p in th e in v e stig a tio n in excha nge fora di s m i s s al . ” H ow ever , M al one does notal l ege thatei t herK ennedyor M cM ahon w er e part yt o t hatconver s at i on, oreven a w ar e of the r eques t . A l t hough the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o t hem w as bas ed upon the court ’ s bel i ef that theyw ere ent i t l ed to absolut e i m m un i t y , sum m aryj ud gm ent w as neve rtheles s appr opr i at e bec aus e the r ecor d does notal l ow a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndert o fi nd K ennedyor M cM ahon l i abl e bas ed upon the i nves t i gat or ’ s at t empt t o coer ce t es t i m onyfr om M al one. See N ari n v. L ow er Meri on Sch . D ist . , 2 0 6 F . 3 d 3 2 3 , 3 3 3 n . 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( " An appel l at e courtm ayaff

i r m a dec i s i on on a gr ound otherthan thatr el i ed on bythe di s tr i ct c o u rt ." ). C . T he Int err og at ori es. D ur i ng di s covery , D efe ndant s obj ect ed t o s om e of M al one’ s i nt err ogat or i es and s o u g h t a p ro te c tiv e o rd e r a rg u in g th a t s o m e o f th e in f o rm a tio n s o u g h t w a s p ri v ile g e d . M agi s tr at e J udge H edges agr eed a nd i s s ued a pr ot ect i ve or der . M al one appe al ed that or dert o the D i s t r i ctC our t , and thatcour tr ever s ed bec aus e M agi s t r at e J udge H edges had n o t b a la n c e d M a lo n e ’s n e e d f o r t h e in f o rm a tio n a g a in s t th e D e f e n d a n ts ’ n e e d f

o r s e c re c y . T her eaf t er , M agi s t r at e J udge Li nar es conduct ed the bal anci ng as or der ed bythe D i s t r i ct C our t . H e conc l uded thatt he D efe ndant s ’ need f ors ecr ecyoutw ei ghed M al one’ s need fort he i nform at i on and he ther efor e ent er ed a pr ot ect i ve or deras r eques t ed bythe17

D e f e n d a n ts. M a lo n e n e v e r a p p e a led th a t o rd e r. R a th e r, M a lo n e n o w a ttem p ts to ch all en g e tha t ord er a s p art of the a p p ea l of

the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof K ennedyand M cM ahon bas ed upon the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on th a t th e ya re e n title d to a b s o lu te im m u n ity. T h e d isc o v e ryd isp u te w a s o rig in a llyre f e rre d to th e M a g istra te J u d g e p u rsu a n t to th e F e d e r a l M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e s Ac t , 2 8 U. S . C. § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( a ) ( A) . T h a ts e c t i o n a l l o ws M a g istra te J u d g e s to h e a r a n d d e ter m in e n o n d isp o sitiv e p re trial m a tters . T h e M a g istra te Ju d g e ’s r u lin g s o n th o se m a tters a re d e ter m in a tiv e u n les s o v e rru led b yth e D istric t C o u rt. S e e U n ite d S te e lw o rke rs v . N

e w J e rs e y Z in c C o ., In c ., 8 2 8 F . 2 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 5 (3d C ir . 1987) . I n U

nited S t eelw orkers , w e appr ovi ngl yquot ed the fol l ow i ng s t at ementfr om Ni ehaus v. Kans as B arA s s oci at i on , 7 9 3 F . 2 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 4 -65 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). “‘[ B ]y f a ili n g to f

ile tim e lyo b

jec tio n s to th e m a g istra te’ s d isc o v e ryo rd e r, ap p e llan ts n o t o n ly str ipp ed the d istri ct co u rto f it s fu n cti o n o f e ff ec ti v elyrev iew ing the m ag istrate’s o rde r, butal s o frus t r at ed the pol i cybehi nd the M agi s t r at e’ s A ct . . . . ” U n ite d S te e lw o rke rs , 828 F .2 d a t 1 0 0 7 . I n C ont i nentalC as ual t

y C o. v. D om i ni ck D ’

A ndr ea, I

nc. , 150 F. 3d 245, 252 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), w e sta ted , “[ t]h is C o u rt h a s s p e c if ica llyh e ld th a t a p a rtyf a ili n g to a p p e a l to the di s tr i ctcour ta magi s t r at e j udge’ s or deri n a nondi s pos i t i ve mat t erm aynotr ai s e an o b jecti o n to ito n ap p ea l t o a c ir cu itco u rt []” absent “excep t i on al ci rcum st ances. ” W e al so expl ai ned thatt he “e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” thatw oul d j us t i fya depa r tur e fr om that18

gener al rul e mustbe narr ow l yi nt erpr et ed. T hus , w e w oul d onl yaddr es s s uch i s s ues “w hen the publ i c i nt er es tr equi r es [i t ] , . . . w hen mani fes ti nj us t i ce w oul d r es ul t. . . . or w hen the al l eged e r r or[i s ] fundament al and r es ul t [s ] i n a hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al err or. . . . ” Id . M al one cl ai m s t hathe w i l l be s ever el ypr ej udi ced i f w e do notr evi ew the prot ect i ve o rderhere becau se he can no test abli sh l i abil i t yw i t ho ut answ ers t o those i nterrogat ori es. W hetheror not that i s true, i ti s not s uff i ci ent t o est abli sh t he “m anifest i nj us t i ce” r equi r ed t o r evi ew an i s s ue i n t he abs ence of a pr oper l yfi l ed obj ect i on t o a M a g is tr a te J u d g e ’s ru lin g . “ M e re p re ju d ic e is in s u f

f ic ie n t to re tr ie v e a n a b a n d o n e d is s u e .” Id . I I I . C oncl us i on. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill re v e rse th e d e c isio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n tin g a b so lu te i m m uni tyt o K ennedyand M cM ahon, bas ed upon thei rconducti n del ay i ng the r eturn of M a lo n e ’s tru c k s a n d c o n d iti o n in g th a t re tu rn o n th e e x e c u tio n o f a re lea se . W e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entbas ed upon al l egat i ons that K ennedyand M cM ahon att empt ed t o us e the for fei tur e t o for ce J ames M al one t o t es t i fy agai ns totheri ndi vi dual s . W e do notr eac h M al one’ s cl ai m thatthe M agi s t r at e J udge e rre d in e n ter in g a p ro tec tiv e o rd e r a llo w in g D e f e n d a n ts to re f

u se to a n sw e r c e rta in i nterrogat ori es.