## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT
DO NN A M . AU GU STE, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. JA M E S A . A L D E R D E N , ind iv id u a lly and i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas Sher i ff o f La r i me rCou n t y ; J AM ES S U L L IV A N , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is o ffici al ca p ac ityas In v esti g ator, L ar i m erC ount ySher i ff’ s O ffi ce; J O H N N E W H O U SE , i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas In v e stig a to r, L a rim e r C o u n ty S h e r i ff ’ s Offi c e ; RO GE R B AR T RA M i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas I nves t i gat or , L ar i m er Co u n t yS h e r i ff ’ s Offi c e ; T HOMAS W IL S O N , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is o ffici al as c ap ac ityInv esti g ator, O ffice o f

th e D istric t A tto rn e y , S a n ta C l a r a C o u n t y, D efen dan t s, and B E N J A M I N FI E L D , i ndi vi dual l yand in h is o fficia l ca p a c itya s D e p u ty D istri ct A tt o rne yfo r S an ta C lara C o u n t y, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1450 ( D. C. No . 0 3
- c v - 2 2 5 6 W YD PAC)

( D . C ol or ado)This order and judgment is not bi nding prece dent, except underthe doctrine s of * l aw o f th e c a s e , r e s j u di c at a , an d c o l l at e r a l e s t o p p e l . It m a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h F ED . R. A PP . P. 32. 1 and 10 TH C IR . R . 32. 1. -2- 

### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T *
B efor e LU CE RO , S EY M OUR , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

B e njam in F ield , a D e p u tyD istric t A tto rn e yin S a n ta C lar a C o u n ty C al i forni a, appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on s e e k in g a b s o lu te im m u n ity f ro m a c iv il r ig h ts s u it b ro u g h t b yD o n n a A u g u s te . W e a ffir m . I n A u g u s to f

1 9 9 8 , D a m o n A u g u s t e w a s c o n v i c t e d i n S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y, C a lifo rn ia a n d se n ten c e d to 1 8 y e a rs a n d 8 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. B e njam in F ield pr os ecut ed M r . A ugus t e and l at erpart i ci pat ed i n the s t at e’ s defe ns e of a habea s act i on fi l ed byM r . A ugus t e. I n the pr oces s of pr epar i ng the s t at e’ s habea s d efen se, M r. F iel d an d T h o m as W il so n , an inv esti g ator w ith the S an ta C lara D istri ct A tt o rne y ’s O ffice, ex ec u ted five s ea rch w arran ts ag ains t M r. A u g u ste’s fami l ym ember s and pot ent i al w i tnes s es and thei rfami l i es i n C al i forni a. D ur i ng a s ear ch of M r . A ugus t e’ s m ot her ’ s hom e on J ul y17, 2003, M r . W i l s on s ei zed a lette r f ro m M r. A u g u ste a d d re ss e d to D o n n a M . A u g u ste , M r. A u g u ste ’s a u n t, po stm arked S eptem ber 30, 1998 . In the lett er, M r. A ug ust e exp res sed his i nter est-3-

i n per s uadi ng a j ur orfr om hi s or i gi nal tr i al t o al l ege mi s conductand pr opos ed a pl an t o br i be j ur or s i f he w er e r etr i ed. A ft erfi ndi ng t he l et t er , M r . Fi el d s oughtas s i s t ance fr om the Lar i m er C ount y , C ol or ado Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce i n exec ut i ng a w arr antauthor i zi ng a s ear ch of D o n n a A u g u ste ’s C o lo ra d o h o m e . A t M r. F ield s’s b e h e st, a L a rim e r C o u n ty Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce i nves t i gat ors ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tt o the Lar i m erC ountyD i s t r i ct C our ti n s uppor tof the i s s uance of a w arr ant . T he affi davi tr eci t ed i nform at i on r el ay ed byM r . W i l s on. T he C ol or ado courtauthor i zed a s ear ch w arr antw hi ch
w as exec ut ed atM s . A ugus t e’ s hom e on J ul y24, 2003. Pr i ort o t he exe cut i on of the D onna A ugus t e w arr ant , on J ul y18, 2003, t he
s t at e tr i al j udge pr es i di ng overM r . A ugus t e’ s habea s pr ocee di ngs w as appr i s ed of t he governm ent ’ s us e of s ear ch w arr ant s as a means of di s covery . I n r es pons e, t he s t at e court“or der ed R es pondentgo thr ough thi s C our texcl us i vel yforany f u rth e r se a rc h w a rra n ts.” R e c ., v o l. II at 3 6 4 . M r. F ield “ re p lied th a t h e w o u ld abide byt his order, ” bu t , according t o the cou rt , “[d]espi t e [M r. F i el d]’ s prom i se t o t he C our t , fourday s l at er , on J ul y22, 2003, [M r . Fi el d and M r . W i l s on] p erm itted a C o lorad o jud g e to e x ec u te a se arc h w arran t on ” M s. A u g u ste’s
re s id e n c e . Id. T h e c o u rtn o ted th at “the sea rch o f [ M r. ] A u g u ste’s au n t’ s r es i dence . . . w as m ade i n vi ol at i on of thi s C ourt ’ s or dert o cea s e anyfur ther
w a rr a n ts w ith o u t th is C o u rt ’s p ri o r a p p ro v a l,” id . at366, and or der ed al l evi dence obt ai ned fr om al l t he s ear ches be exc l uded fr om an evi dent i aryhear i ng i n the-4-

h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g . M s . A ugus t e s ubs equent l yfi l ed thi s § 1983 act i on agai ns tthe Sher i ff of L arim er C o u n ty , C o lorad o , h is i n v esti g ators, an d m em b ers o f th e S an ta C lara D i s t r i ctA t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce, i ncl udi ng M r . Fi el d, i n both thei roffi ci al and i ndi vi dual capa ci t i es . Speci fi cal l y , M s . A ugus t e al l eged the s ear ch w arr ant execu t ed at her hom e w as obtai ned throug h int enti on al and fal se m i s r epr es ent at i ons i n vi ol at i on of hercons t i tut i onal r i ght s under42 U . S. C . §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985( 3) . B ot h the C ol or ado and Cal i forni a defendant s as s er t ed t heyw er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on the doctr i nes of qual i fi ed and
a b s o l u t e i mmu n i t y . Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d th e § 1 9 8 5 ( 3 ) a n d § 1 9 8 1 c l a i ms foral l defe ndant s , and deni ed cl ai m s agai ns tal l defe ndant s i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es and aga i ns tal l defe ndant s otherthan M r . W i l s on, M r . Fi el d, and J ames S u lli v a n , a L a rim e r C o u n tyin v e stig a to r, in th e ir p e rso n a l ca p a c iti e s. T h e o n ly i s s ue r ai s ed i n t hi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l i s M r . Fi el d’ s cont ent i on thatthe di s tr i ct c o u r te r r e d i n d e n yi n g h i m th e l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n s o f a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. A l t hough i nt er l ocut or yappea l s ar e typi cal l ydi s favor ed, a publ i c off i ci al
m a ya p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f a b s o lu te im m u n ity b e fo re fin a l ju d g m e n t. See Mitch e ll
v . Fo rsy th , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 2 5 (1 9 8 5 ). T h e “ o fficia l se e k in g a b so lu te im m u n ity b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g th a t su c h im m u n ityis ju stified fo r th e f u n c tio n in ques t i on. ” B ur ns v. R eed , 5 0 0 U. S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 6 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . On a p p e a l , we “ r e v i e w de
novo a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on on the ques t i on of abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . ” G agan-5-

v. Nor t on , 3 5 F . 3 d 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 7 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Pr os ecut or s ar e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om s ui tunder§ 1983 foract i vi t i es

“ in tim a te ly as s o c ia te d w ith th e ju d ic ia l p h a s e o f th e c ri m in a l p ro c e s s .” Im bl erv. P achtm an , 4 2 4 U .S . 4 0 9 , 4 3 0 (1 9 7 6 ). A c tio n s m o re fitt in g ly
c h a ra c ter ize d a s in v e stig a tiv e o r a d m in istra tiv e a re p ro tec ted b ya b so lu te im m u n ityo n lyw h e n th o se a c ts a re “ n e c e ss a ryso th a t a p ro se c u to r m a yf u lfill h is funct i on as an off

i cerof the court . ” P

f ei f f erv. Har t

f or d F i r e Ins . C o. , 929 F. 2d 1484, 1490 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng Sn e ll v. Tu n n e ll, 9 2 0 F .2 d 6 7 3 , 6 9 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1990) ) . “I ndeed, w e have r epea t edl yfound i nves t i gat i ve and a dm i ni s tr at i ve act i ons t aken bys t at e pr os ecut or s t o be ade quat el ypr ot ect ed bythe doctr i ne of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y. . . . ” G agan , 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 7 5 . I n dr aw i ng t he l i ne betw een a bs ol ut e and qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyfor p ro se c u to rs, “ w e h a v e h e ld th e d e ter m in a tiv e fa c to r is a d v o c a c yb e c a u se th a t is t he pr os ecut or ’ s m ai n funct i on. ” Id. (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T o h e lp d e fin e th e lin e , w e hav e app l i ed a co nti nu um -based app roach t o these deci si on s, s t at i ng t he more di s t anta func t i on i s fr om the j udi ci al pr oces s and th e in iti a tio n a n d p re se n tatio n o f th e sta te’ s c a se , the les s lik e lyit i s t hatabs ol ut e i m m uni t yw i l l att ach. Id. I n G agan , w e cons i der ed the appl i cabi l i tyof abs ol ut e i m m uni tyt o a pr os ecut orw ho di s r egar ded a s t at e courtor derm ade i n connec t i on w i th a fe der al h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g . M r. G a g a n h a d filed p ro se a h a b e a s a c tio n se e k in g to-6-

over tur n hi s s t at e courtconvi ct i on. H e fi l ed a mot i on i n s t at e courtr eques t i ng pr epar at i on of tr ans cr i pt s nece s s aryt o the deve l opm entof hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on. T he s t at e j udge gr ant ed the mot i on, butthe A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al ( A A G ) defe ndi ng t he s t at e “a l l egedl yor der ed the courtr eport ernott o pr epar e the t r ans cr i pt s , not w i t hs t andi ng t he s t at e courtj udge’ s or dert o the contr ary . ” G agan , 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 7 5 . M r. G a g a n filed a § 1 9 8 3 c laim , as se rtin g th e A A G ’s “ a c tio n s in
c o u n ter m a n d in g th e sta te c o u rt ju d g e ’s o rd e r” re su lted in a v io latio n o f h is
c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . Id. T he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notcons i derthe under l y i ng c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m, b u tc o n c l u d e d i n s t e a d th a tth e AAG wa s s h i e l d e d f r o m § 1983 l i abi l i t yby“the pr ot ect i ve umbre l l a of a bs ol ut e i m m uni ty . ” Id. M r . G a g a n a p p e a l e d t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty, and w e r ever s ed. I n s o doi ng, w e s t at ed:

W e fin d it d ifficu lt t o se e h o w a p ro se c u to r’s a c tio n s in contr aveni ng t he author i t yof the j udi ci al br anch of s t at e governm ent i n r egar d t o t he defens e of a ci vi l act i on cons t i tut e the ki nd of advoca cyr el at ed t o t he i ni t i at i on and pr os ecut i on of cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs , even unde rt he mostgener ous i nt erpr et at i on of that phr as e, t o w hi ch abs ol ut e i m m uni tyatt ache s . St at ed al t ernat i vel y , the act i ons ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e ar e s i m pl yt oo farr emoved on t he cont i nuum fr om t he cor e pr os ecut or i al funct i ons of i ni t i at i ng and p u r s u i n g c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s t o b e c o v e r e d b y a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al has fai l ed to c a rryh e r b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g h e r e n tit lem e n t to a b so lu te im m u n ity . . . . Id. at1476 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e thus hel d the A A G i n G agan w as notent i t l ed to a b so lu te im m u n ityw h e re sh e d e fied a C o lo ra d o sta te c o u rt o rd e r w h ile-7-

d e fe n d in g a fe d e ra l h a b e a s a c tio n . I n t he pr es entcas e, w hi l e defendi ng agai ns tM r . A ugus t e’ s s t at e habe as pet i t i on, M r . Fi el d or der ed a s ear ch w arr antexec ut ed i n C ol or ado des pi t e the C al i forni a s t at e courtor dert o t he contr ary . O urhol di ng i n G agan d ire c tly addr es s ed the i nappl i cabi l i t yof abs ol ut e i m m uni tyi n cas es w her e, l i ke her e, the pr os ecut ordefi ed a s t at e courtor deri n the cour s e of de fendi ng agai ns ta habe as p e tit io n . In lig h t o f

th is d ire c tlyc o n tro lli n g p re c e d e n t, w e c o n c lu d e M r. F ield is
n o te n t i t l e d t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge