### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

L E S L I E B

. L A M P T O N

,

P l a i n t i f f

,

v e r s u s

O L I V E R E

. D I A Z

, J R

. ; J E N N I F E R D I A Z

,

D e f e n d a n t s

- T h i r d P a r t y P l a i n t i f f s

A p p e l l e e s ,

v e r s u s

D U N N I C A L A M P T O N

,

T h i r d P a r t y D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

A p p e a l s f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i s s i s s i p p i U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s
F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D
April 18 , 20 11

Lyle W . Cayce
Clerk Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

B e f o r e S M I T H

, W I E N E R

, a n d O W E N

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

J E R R Y E

. S M I T H

, C i r c u i t J u d g e :

I n I m b l e r v

. P a c h t m a n , 4 2 4 U

. S

. 4 0 9

, 4 3 0 ( 1 9 7 6 )

, t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t p r o

s e c u t o r s r e t a i n c o m m o n

- l a w i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t f

o r a l l a c t i o n s “ i n t i m a t e l y a s

s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e j u d i c i a l p h a s e o f t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s

. ” T h i s a p p e a l r a i s e s t h e

i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h a t a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y e x t e n d s t o a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s p o s t

- t r i a l

t r a n s f e r o f p r i v a t e f e d e r a l t a x r e c o r d s t o a s t a t e e t h i c s c o m m i s s i o n

. C o n c l u d i n g

t h a t i t d o e s n o t

, w e a f f i r m t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

.

I

.

B e t w e e n 2 0 0 3 a n d 2 0 0 6

, D u n n i c a L a m p t o n , t h e U

. S

. A t t o r n e y f o r t h e

S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i s s i s s i p p i

, p r o s e c u t e d O l i v e r D i a z , a M i s s i s s i p p i S u p r e m e

C o u r t j u s t i c e , a n d J e n n i f e r D i a z , h i s w i f e , f o r f r a u d

, b r i b e r y , a n d t a x e v a s i o n

.

O l i v e r D i a z w a s a c q u i t t e d

, b u t J e n n i f e r D i a z p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t a x e v a s i o n

.

L a m p t o n t h e n f

i l e d a c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e M i s s i s s i p p i C o m m i s s i o n o n J u d i c i a l

P e r f o r m a n c e ( t h e “ C o m m i s s i o n ” ) a b o u t O l i v e r D i a z ’ s c o n d u c t

. H e i n c l u d e d c o p i e s

o f t h e D i a z e s ’ f e d e r a l t a x r e c o r d s o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n

. 1

T h e C o m m i s s i o n d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 8

.

T h e D i a z e s s u e d L a m p t o n i n f e d e r a l c o u r t

, a l l e g i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 b a s e d o n d e p r i v a t i o n o f r i g h t s u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 0 5 a n d 2 6 U

. S

. C

. § § 6 1 0 3 a n d 7 2 1 3

. J e n n i f e r L a m p t o n a l s o l a t e r r a i s e d a c l a i m u n d e r 2 6 U

. S

. C

. 2

The par tie s have not info rm ed us wh ethe r the tax rec ord s we re intr oduc ed in evide nce 1

in the cri mi nal pr oce edi ngs or, if so , wh ethe r they we re unde r se al. We ther efo re ass ume that

thos e r eco rd s rem ained c onf ide ntial be for e La mp ton for wa rd ed them t o t he Com mi ss ion.

The Di azes fil ed thei r clai ms as a thir d- par ty com plai nt in an act ion brou ght by Les lie 2 Lamp ton, one of the me mbe rs of the Com mis sio n and a dis tant rela tive of Du nnica Lamp ton.
Les lie Lamp ton wa s se ek ing a dec larat ory judgm ent of im mun ity fr om sui t by the Di azes

. On ly

the dis put e b etw een the Di azes and D unnica Lam pt on is at iss ue in this ap pea l.

2 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

§ 7 4 3 1

. T h o s e s t a t u t e s p r o h i b i t g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l s f r o m r e l e a s i n g p r i v a t e t a x

r e c o r d s o b t a i n e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r d u t i e s

. T h e D i a z e s ’ s u i t a l s o i n c l u d e d a

n u m b e r o f s t a t e l a w c l a i m s

. L a m p t o n f i l e d a F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e

1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m , a r g u i n g t h a t a b s o l u t e p r o s e c u t o r i a l

i m m u n i t y s h i e l d s h i s d e c i s i o n t o g i v e t h e t a x r e c o r d s t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n

. T h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , a n d L a m p t o n a p p e a l e d

. 3 4

I I

.

W e r e v i e w d e n o v o t h e g r a n t o f a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

. M a r t i n

K

. E b y C o n s t r

. C o

. v

. D a l l a s A r e a R a p i d T r a n s i t

, 3 6 9 F

. 3 d 4 6 4

, 4 6 7 ( 5 t h C i r

.

2 0 0 4 )

. “ I n d e t e r m i n i n g i m m u n i t y , w e a c c e p t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f r e s p o n d e n t ’ s c o m

p l a i n t a s t r u e

. ” K

a l i n a v

. F l e t c h e r , 5 2 2 U

. S

. 1 1 8

, 1 2 2 ( 1 9 9 7 )

. W e a l s o a s s u m e ,

w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , t h a t t h e D i a z e s ’ a l l e g a t i o n s s t a t e a c a u s e o f a c t i o n u n d e r

§ 1 9 8 3

.

I n I m b l e r , 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 4 2 7

, t h e C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t C o n g r e s s d i d n o t a b

r o g a t e p r o s e c u t o r s ’ c o m m o n

- l a w i m m u n i t i e s w h e n i t e n a c t e d § 1 9 8 3

. T h a t i m

m u n i t y , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t e x t e n d b e y o n d i t s s c o p e t h a t e x i s t e d a t c o m m o n l a w

i n 1 8 7 1

, w h e n § 1 9 8 3 w a s e n a c t e d

, n o r d o e s i t p e r s i s t u n l e s s t h e p o l i c y b e h i n d 5

t h e c o m m o n

- l a w r u l e i s s t i l l a p p l i c a b l e

. T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r p r o s e c u t o r i a l 6

Lam pton v. D ia z , 2010 U. S. D ist

. LEXIS 44738 (S .D

. Mis s. 201 0). 3

Lamp ton did not raise

, and the dis tri ct cour t did not add res s, othe r im mun itie s that 4

mi ght be a pp li ca b le. This opi nion thus add res se s only the app lica bilit y of abs olut e pr os ecut orial im mun ity to the § 1 983 clai m.

Imbl er , 424 U. S. at 420 (“ [O ]ur earl ier dec isi ons on § 1983 im mun itie s we re not pr od- 5

uct s of judicia l fiat

. . . . Rather , eac h was pred icat ed up on a cons ide red inquiry into the immun ity his tor ical ly acc ord ed the rele vant off icia l at com mo n law and the inte res ts behind it.

The liabil ity of a s tat e p ros ecut or unde r § 1 983 mus t be det erm ined in t he sam e m anner .” ).

Id. at 424 (“ We now mus t det erm ine wh ethe r the sam e cons ide rat ions of publ ic pol icy 6

that unde rlie the com mo n-la w rule lik ew ise count enanc e abs olut e im mun ity unde r § 1983. ”)

.

3 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

i m m u n i t y a p p l i e s , w e t h u s a s k “ ( 1 ) w h e t h e r , a t t h e t i m e o f § 1 9 8 3 ’ s e n a c t m e n t

,

t h e p r a c t i c a l f

u n c t i o n o f t h e c o n d u c t a t i s s u e m e r i t e d a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y , a n d

( 2 ) w h e t h e r , a t p r e s e n t

, a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y f o r t h e c o n d u c t a t i s s u e i s n e c e s s a r y

t o a d v a n c e t h e p o l i c y i n t e r e s t s t h a t j u s t i f i e d t h e c o m m o n l a w i m m u n i t y

. ” N e i

7

t h e r o f t h o s e i n q u i r i e s s u p p o r t s L a m p t o n ’ s c l a i m t o i m m u n i t y

.

A

.

A t t h e t i m e o f § 1 9 8 3 ’ s e n a c t m e n t

, c o m m o n

- l a w p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i t y

e x t e n d e d o n l y t o “ c o n d u c t t h a t i s ‘ i n t i m a t e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e j u d i c i a l p h a s e

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

. ’ ” A b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y d i d n o t e x t e n d t o “ ‘ t h o s e i n v e s t i g a

8

t o r y f u n c t i o n s t h a t d o n o t r e l a t e t o a n a d v o c a t e ’ s p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e i n i t i a t i o n

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

o r j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s

. ’ ” M o s t i m m u n i t y c a s e s t h u s f o c u s 9

o n t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s i n v e s t i g a t o r y f u n c t i o n s a n d a d v o c a c y

f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s

. L a m p t o n , b y c o n t r a s t

, a s s e r t s t h a t i m

1 0

m u n i t y s h o u l d e x t e n d t o p o s t

- t r i a l c o n d u c t i n s t i t u t i n g a n e w p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e

a d i f f e r e n t t r i b u n a l

. O n i t s f a c e , t h a t c o n d u c t a p p e a r s t o b e w e l l o u t s i d e t h e

b o u n d s o f t h e c o m m o n

- l a w p r o t e c t i o n : C o n d u c t u n d e r t a k e n a f t e r a f e d e r a l p r o s e

Ho og-W atso n v. Gu ada lup e Cnty.

, 591 F.3d 431, 438 (5t h Cir. 2009) (c itin g Kal ina

, 522 7

U. S. at 123; Buckl ey v. Fitz si mm ons , 509 U. S. 259, 267- 71 (199 3); Burns v. Ree d

, 500 U. S. 478,

484- 96 ( 1991) ; Cousi n v

. Sma ll

, 325 F.3d 627

, 631- 32 ( 5th Cir. 200 3))

.

Ho og-W atso n , 591 F.3d at 438 ( quot ing Burns

, 500 U. S. at 486 ). 8

Id. (quo ting Buckl ey , 509 U. S. at 273)

. Recen tly, the Sup rem e Court exten ded im mun

9 ity to inclu de cer tain adm inis tra tive act ions

, inclu ding the fai lure ade quate ly to tra in or sup ervise othe r pr os ecut ors to pr ote ct def enda nts ’ right s. See Va n de Kam p v. Go lds tein

, 129 S. Ct.
855, 864- 65 (200 9). Altho ugh Lamp ton ins ist s that Va n de Kam p expand ed pr os ecut oria l im

mun ity, it did so only for “a cer tain ki nd of adm inis tra tive obligat ion— a ki nd that its elf is dir

ect ly conne cte d wi th the cond uct of a tri al. ” Id. at 862. If Lamp ton’ s cond uct coul d be char acter ized as adm inis tra tive— wh ich he doe s not cont end— it wa s not dir ect ly conne cte d wi th the

cond uct of

t he tri al, as exp lained i nfr a

.

For exam ple

, a pr os ecut or’ s app eara nce in cour t in sup por t of a se arc h wa rra nt is pr o- 1 0

tec ted

, but pr ovidi ng legal advic e to the pol ice dur ing pr etr ial inves tigat ion is not. Burns

, 500

U. S. at 492 -96.

4 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

c u t i o n i s o v e r i s n o t p a r t o f t h e “ j u d i c i a l p h a s e , ” a n d a s t a t e e t h i c s p r o c e e d i n g i s

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

. ”

T o s u p p o r t h i s n o v e l a r g u m e n t

, L a m p t o n c o n t e n d s t h a t B u t z v

. E c o n o m o u ,

4 3 8 U

. S

. 4 7 8 ( 1 9 7 8 )

, s h o w s t h a t i m m u n i t y c a n e x t e n d t o a c t i o n s b e f o r e t r i b u n a l s

o t h e r t h a n c o u r t s , s u c h a s f e d e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d s , e v e n t h o u g h t h o s e

b o a r d s d i d n o t e x i s t a t c o m m o n l a w

. F o l l o w i n g E c o n o m o u , s o m e c o u r t s h a v e 1 1

e x t e n d e d i m m u n i t y t o m e m b e r s o f s t a t e e t h i c s c o m m i s s i o n s

. L a m p t o n c o n

1 2

t e n d s h e s h o u l d e n j o y t h e s a m e i m m u n i t y , b e c a u s e h e w a s a c t i n g b e f o r e a s t a t e

e t h i c s c o m m i s s i o n

. H e w a s n o t

, h o w e v e r , a c t i n g a s a m e m b e r o f t h e C o m m i s

s i o n , n o r w a s h e a s t a t e e t h i c s a t t o r n e y a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o s e c u t e c a s e s b e f o r e i t

.

V i s

- a

- v i s t h e C o m m i s s i o n , h i s s t a t u s w a s m e r e l y t h a t o f a c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s ,

a n d c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s e s w e r e n o t a c c o r d e d a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y a t c o m m o n

l a w

. E c o n o m o u a n d i t s p r o g e n y d o n o t s u p p o r t L a m p t o n ’ s p o s i t i o n

. 1 3

L a m p t o n a l s o p o i n t s t o o n e c a s e i n w h i c h a p r o s e c u t o r e n j o y e d a b s o l u t e i m

m u n i t y f

o r p o s t

- t r i a l c o n d u c t

. I n D e m e r y v

. K u p p e r m a n , 7 3 5 F

. 2 d 1 1 3 9 ( 9 t h C i r

.

1 9 8 4 )

, a p r o s e c u t o r a f t e r t r i a l r e v o k e d a w a i v e r o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a s u s

p e n d e d d o c t o r t o r e c l a i m h i s m e d i c a l l i c e n s e u n d e r s t a t e l a w a n d f a i l e d t o n o t i f y

t h e d o c t o r o f t h e r e v o c a t i o n

. T h e c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r e n j o y e d a b s o

l u t e i m m u n i t y , b e c a u s e “ p r o s e c u t o r s a r e a b s o l u t e l y i m m u n e f r o m c i v i l s u i t s a l

See Econo mo u , 438 U. S. at 516 (197 8) (“ [W] e hold that thos e off icia ls wh o are res pon- 1 1

sib le for the dec isi on to init iate or cont inue a pr oce edi ng sub ject to agency adjud icat ion are entit led t o a bso lute im mun ity fr om d ama ges liabil ity for t heir p art s in that d ecis ion. ”)

.

See, e. g. , Carr oll v. Gr oss , 984 F.2d 392 (11t h Cir. 1 9 9 3 ) ; S i m o n s v. Bel li nger , 643 1 2

F.2d 774 ( D. C. Cir. 198 0).

See Ma ll ey v. Br iggs

, 475 U. S. 335, 340- 341 (198 6) (“ [C] om plai ning w itne ss es w ere 1 3

not abs olut ely im mun e at com mo n law

. In 1871, the genera lly acc ept ed rule wa s that one wh o

pr ocur ed the iss uance of an arres t wa rra nt by s ubm itt ing a com plai nt coul d be held li able if the comp laint wa s made malici ous ly and witho ut pr obable caus e. Gi ven mal ice and the lack
of pr obable caus e, the com plai nant enjoy e d n o im mun ity. The com mo n law thus aff ord s no

sup por t for p eti tio ner. ” (f oot note omit ted )) ; see als o Kal ina

, 522 U. S. at 129 -31 (ho ldi ng t hat

a p ros ecut or act ing as a com plai ning w itne ss is no t enti tle d to abs olut e i mm unity)

.

5 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

l e g i n g w r o n g d o i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o p o s t

- l i t i g a t i o n a s w e l l a s p r e

- l i t i g a t i o n h a n d

l i n g o f a c a s e

. ” I

d

. a t 1 1 4 4

. L a m p t o n c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s a c t i o n s f o l l o w i n g t h e

c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s h o u l d b e s i m i l a r l y i m m u n e

.

B u t D e m e r

y d o e s n o t s u p p o r t L a m p t o n ’ s a r g u m e n t

. T h e p r o s e c u t o r t h e r e

w a s c o m p l e t i n g h i s d u t y u n d e r s t a t e l a w t o m o n i t o r t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e p r o c e e d

i n g

. H i s a c t i o n s w e r e t h u s r e l a t e d t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n o v e r w h i c h h e h a d j u r i s d i c

t i o n

. B y c o n t r a s t

, L a m p t o n i s a f e d e r a l p r o s e c u t o r w i t h n o d u t y t o b r i n g c o m

p l a i n t s b e f

o r e a s t a t e e t h i c s c o m m i s s i o n , a n d t h e a c t i o n s f o r w h i c h h e s e e k s i m

m u n i t y a r e u n r e l a t e d t o h i s p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e D i a z e s

. L a m p t o n p r o t e s t s t h a t

h e w o u l d n o t h a v e h a d a c c e s s t o t h e t a x r e c o r d s w e r e i t n o t f o r h i s r o l e a s a p r o

s e c u t o r , b u t t h a t c o n n e c t i o n i s t o o t e n u o u s

. A p r o s e c u t o r d o e s n o t h a v e c a r t e

b l a n c h e t o d o a s h e p l e a s e s w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e c a n a c c e s s

. H e c a n u s e i t o n

l y t o f u l f i l l h i s d u t i e s a s a p r o s e c u t o r , a n d L a m p t o n ’ s a c t i o n s w e n t w e l l b e y o n d

t h o s e b o u n d s

.

L a m p t o n ’ s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t h e h a d a d u t y u n d e r t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R u l e s o f

P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t t o r e p o r t D i a z ’ s m i s c o n d u c t d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h a t c o n c l u

s i o n

. L a m p t o n c o u l d h a v e r e p o r t e d D i a z ’s m i s c o n d u c t w i t h o u t r e l e a s i n g t h e t a x 1 4

r e c o r d s , s o h i s e t h i c a l d u t y d i d n o t c o m p e l v i o l a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l s t a t u t e

. L a m p

t o n ’ s e t h i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s d i d n o t m a k e t h e t r a n s f e r o f t a x r e c o r d s t o a s t a t e

As a pr elim inary mat ter

, Di az argues that Lamp ton wa ived this argum ent by fai ling 1 4

to brief it ade quate ly in the dis tri ct cour t. Lamp ton’ s memo rand um in sup por t of his mo tio n
to dis mi ss d id not me ntio n t he iss ue, w hich he did no t rais e u ntil hi s rep ly m em oran dum

.

The wa iver rule exis ts to pr event an app ellat e cour t fr om “[ analyzing] the fac ts of a par

tic ular [is sue ] wi thou t the benef it of a full rec ord or low er cour t det erm inati on. ” 19 J A M E S W.

M O O R E E T A L
., M O O R E ’ S F E D E R A L P R A C T I C E § 205. 05[1 ], at 205-57 (3 d ed. 201 1) (quo ting Yee

v. City of Esco ndido

, 503 U. S. 519, 538 (199 2))

. Waiver genera lly wi ll not app ly “w hen [an issue ] fai rly app ears in the rec ord as having been rais ed or dec ide d. ” Id. (c itin g Whea tley v. Wicom ic o Cnty.

, 390 F.3d 32 8

, 3 3 4

- 3 5 (4t h Cir. 2004) ). He re, des pit e st ating that it mi ght be

wa ived, the dis tri ct cour t add res se d Lamp ton’ s argum ent that st ate ethi cs rule s requ ired the

dis clos ure. Mo reo ver, ther e is no pr ejudi ce, beca use Di az has had an opp ort unity to res pond

to that ar gume nt on app eal. We thus ad dr es s Lamp ton’ s argum ent on the me rit s.

6 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

c o m m i s s i o n p a r t o f h i s d u t y a s a p r o s e c u t o r

.

I n s h o r t

, L a m p t o n p o i n t s t o n o c a s e

S S a n d w e k n o w o f n o n e

S S e x t e n d i n g

i m m u n i t y t o p o s t

- t r i a l c o n d u c t r e l a t i n g t o a n e w a c t i o n b e f o r e a n e w t r i b u n a l

.

E v e r y c a s e e x t e n d i n g i m m u n i t y t o p o s t

- t r i a l a c t i o n s i n v o l v e s c o n d u c t r e l a t e d t o

t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n i t i a t e d

. L a m p t o n c a n n o t c l a i m 1 5

i m m u n i t y , b e c a u s e h i s p o s t

- t r i a l a c t i o n s d i d n o t r e l a t e t o t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d

i n g s a n d t h u s a r e b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f i m m u n i t y a t c o m m o n l a w

.

B

.

F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p o l i c i e s u n d e r l y i n g p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i t y d o n o t j u s t i f y

i m m u n i t y i n t h i s c o n t e x t

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s i d e n t i f i e d a v a r i e t y o f p o l i c y

i n t e r e s t s b e h i n d p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i t y

. F i r s t

, a n d o f “ p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e , ” i s

t h e “ i n t e r e s t i n e n a b l i n g [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] t o e x e r c i s e i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t w h e n

‘ d e c i d i n g w h i c h s u i t s t o b r i n g a n d i n c o n d u c t i n g t h e m i n c o u r t

. ’ ” K a l i n a , 5 2 2

U

. S

. a t 1 2 5 ( q u o t i n g I m b l e r , 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 4 2 4 )

. S p e c i f i c a l l y , w i t h o u t a b s o l u t e

i m m u n i t y , t h e f

e a r o f s u i t m a y c a u s e t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o “ s h a d e h i s d e c i s i o n s i n

s t e a d o f e x e r c i s i n g t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f j u d g m e n t r e q u i r e d b y h i s p u b l i c t r u s t

. ”

I m b l e r , 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 4 2 3

.

T h a t c o n c e r n i s a b s e n t h e r e

. I n t h e t y p i c a l i m m u n i t y c a s e , t h e p r o s e c u t o r

f a c e s a r e t a l i a t o r y s u i t ( u s u a l l y f o r d e f a m a t i o n , m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , o r t h e

l i k e ) o n l y i f h e l o s e s t h e i n i t i a l c r i m i n a l a c t i o n

. I m m u n i t y i s t h u s n e c e s s a r y t o

p r e v e n t h i m f

r o m s h y i n g a w a y f

r o m w e a k e r c a s e s o u t o f f e a r o f l i a b i l i t y

. B y

c o n t r a s t

, e v e n i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a d r u l e d a g a i n s t D i a z , L a m p t o n w o u l d s t i l l

See, e.g. , Brow n v. Cal . D ep ’t of Corr.

, 554 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2009) (p ros ecut or’ s ac- 1 5

tio ns at par ole hear ing); Park ins on v. Cozz oli no , 238 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2001) (p ros ecut or’ s actio ns in def

endi ng a dir ect appe al) ; Cole ma n v. Tur pe n , 697 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10t h Cir. 1982) (p ros ecut or’ s dec isi on not to ret urn def enda nt’ s pr ope rty use d as evide nce in tri al) ; Smi th v

. Shel by Cnty.

, 3 F. App ’x 436 (6t h Cir. 2001) (p ros ecut or’ s act ions that allege dly del ayed pos tconvic tio n r elie f)

.

7 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

f a c e l i a b i l i t y

. T h e f

e d e r a l s t a t u t e s p r o h i b i t i n g r e l e a s e o f t a x r e c o r d s ( u n l i k e s t a t e

c l a i m s f o r d e f a m a t i o n o r m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n ) a p p l y r e g a r d l e s s o f h o w “ s t r o n g ”

i s t h e c a s e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t

. T h e r e i s t h u s n o “ p r o s e c u t o r i a l d i s c r e t i o n ” t o

p r o t e c t

.

S e c o n d

, i m m u n i t y l e s s e n s t h e b u r d e n o f l i t i g a t i o n o n p r o s e c u t o r s

. W i t h o u t

i m m u n i t y , t h e “ f

r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s b r i n g [ r e t a l i a t o r y ]

s u i t s ” w o u l d “ i m p o s e u n i q u e a n d i n t o l e r a b l e b u r d e n s u p o n a p r o s e c u t o r r e s p o n s i

b l e a n n u a l l y f

o r h u n d r e d s o f i n d i c t m e n t s a n d t r i a l s

. ” V a n d e K a m p , 1 2 9 S

. C t

.

a t 8 6 0 ( q u o t i n g I m b l e r , 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 4 2 5

- 2 6 )

. T h a t b u r d e n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s

s e n e d h e r e , f

o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f r e t a l i a t o r y s u i t s a r i s e f r o m a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s d a y

- t o

d a y a c t i o n s p r o s e c u t i n g c a s e s

. T h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i v u l g e c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a

t i o n t o o t h e r b o d i e s i s m u c h l e s s f r e q u e n t a n d w i l l l e a d t o l e s s l i t i g a t i o n t h a t

c o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s t a s k s

.

A n o t h e r r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s “ t h e e x i s t e n c e o f m e a n s o t h e r t h a n t h e

i m p o s i t i o n o f

p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y o n t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o i n s u r e t h a t c r i m i n a l d e f e n

d a n t s r e c e i v e f a i r t r e a t m e n t i n t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s ” a n d “ t o d e t e r d i s h o n e s t

p r o s e c u t o r s

. ” M o r r i s o n v

. C i t y o f B a t o n R o u g e , 7 6 1 F

. 2 d 2 4 2

, 2 4 6 n

. 3 ( 5 t h C i r

.

1 9 8 5 )

. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r o f e s s i o n a l d i s c i p l i n e o r c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y

u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 0 5 s h o u l d d e t e r d i s h o n e s t p r o s e c u t o r s f r o m d i v u l g i n g p r i

v a t e t a x r e c o r d s

. T h e p r o t e c t i o n s f o r f a i r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , h o w e v e r ,

a r e s o m e w h a t l e s s t h a n i n a t y p i c a l i m m u n i t y c a s e

. A d e f e n d a n t h a s t h e p r o t e c

t i o n s o f j u d g e , j u r y , a n d t h e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s t o r e v i e w a n y p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s

c o n d u c t a t t r i a l

. H e r e , b y c o n t r a s t

, t h e d e c i s i o n t o r e l e a s e t h e t a x r e c o r d s i s u n

r e v i e w a b l e , a n d t h e h a r m i s i n f l i c t e d i m m e d i a t e l y

. T h u s , a c i v i l s u i t i s t h e o n l y

w a y t o m a k e t h e d e f e n d a n t w h o l e

. I n s h o r t

, p o l i c y d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e e x t e n

s i o n o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i t y i n t h i s c o n t e x t

.

T h e r e i s , o f c o u r s e , g o o d r e a s o n t o e x t e n d i m m u n i t y g e n e r a l l y t o a l l w h o

r e p o r t m i s c o n d u c t t o s t a t e b a r e t h i c s c o m m i t t e e s , a n d m a n y s t a t e s h a v e e x t e n d

8 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/18/2011N o

. 1 0

- 6 0 4 3 7

e d a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y t o a n y o n e w h o f i l e s a c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g a t t o r n e y m i s c o n

d u c t

. I n d e e d

, a s a c o m p l a i n a n t t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n , L a m p t o n l i k e l y e n j o y s i m

1 6

m u n i t y f

r o m t h e s t a t e l a w c l a i m s u n d e r M i s s i s s i p p i l a w

. A s s h o w n a b o v e , h o w

1 7

e v e r , f e d e r a l l a w d o e s n o t p r o v i d e i m m u n i t y t o c o m p l a i n a n t s b e f o r e s t a t e e t h i c s

c o m m i t t e e s , b e c a u s e i t w a s n o t p a r t o f t h e i m m u n i t y a t c o m m o n l a w r e c o g n i z e d

i n I m b l e r

. I n t h e a b s e n c e o f c o n g r e s s i o n a l a c t i o n , w e s h o u l d n o t c r e a t e t h a t i m

m u n i t y m e r e l y b e c a u s e i t m a y b e d e s i r a b l e f o r s o m e p o l i c y r e a s o n

. 1 8

T h e d e n i a l o f L a m p t o n ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e D i a z e s ’ § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m i s

A F F I R M E D

.

See, e. g. , D r u m m ond v. Stahl

, 618 P.2d 616 (Ar iz. App

. 1980) ; Fie ld v. Kea rns , 682 1 6

A.2d 148 ( Conn. Ap p. 199 6); Wong v. Sc horr

, 466 P.2d 441 ( Ha w. 197 0); Ric hes on v. Ke ssl er , 255 P.2d 707 (Ida ho 1953) ; K e r p e l m a n v. Bri cke r , 329 A.2d 423 (M d. 1974) ; Wie ner v. Wei ntraub

, 239 N. E.2d 540 (196 8); Mc Curdy v

. H u g h e s , 2 4 8 N. W. 512 (N .D

. 1933) ; Ram stea d v. Mo rgan , 347 P.2d 594 (O r. 1959); see als o Arthur F. Gr eenba um, The A ttorney ’s D uty To Repor t Prof

ess ion al Mi sco nduct: A Roa dma p for Ref orm , 16 G E O

. J. L E G A L E T H I C S 2 5 9

, 3 3 3 (200 3) (“ Abso lute im mun ity, at leas t in def ama tio n act ions st em mi ng fr om rep ort ing or par tic ipat ing

in the dis cip linar y p roc es s, is t he norm .” ).

See M I S S

. C O D E A N N

. § 9-19 -29 (p rovid ing that “[ a]l l com plai nts fil ed [be for e the Com

1 7

mi ss ion] shall be abs olut ely pri vileged ”) . The dis tri ct court ack now led ged that imm unity by

noti ng that “Lam pt on may we ll have act ed as a me mbe r of the bar, and ther e may be so me im

mun itie s that wo uld ther efo re att ach. ” Lam pton

, 2010 U. S. Di st LEXIS 44738, at *17. Lamp

ton doe s not ass ert t hat im mun ity, ho we ver.

See Buckl ey , 509 U. S. at 268 (“ [W] e d o n o t h ave a lice nse to es tabl ish im mun itie s 1 8

fr om § 1983 act ions in the inte res ts of wh at we judge to be so und publ ic pol icy. When, as here

, the pr os ecut oria l func tio n is not wi thin the advoc ate’ s role and ther e is no his tor ical tra dit ion
of im mun ity on wh ich we c an d raw , our inquiry is at an end.” (cit atio n and quot atio n m ark s

om itt ed) ).

9 Case: 10-60437 Document: 00511449652 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/18/2011