Opinion ID: 421196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dillahunty.

Text: 19 Courts have long recognized that prosecutors are absolutely immune from a suit for damages if the alleged violation occurred in the performance of activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process[.] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). See also Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F.2d 396 (2d Cir.1926), affirmed without opinion, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395 (1927). Evans contends that Dillahunty's activities were investigative, not judicial, and that Dillahunty is therefore entitled, at most, only to qualified immunity. 20 We need not determine whether Dillahunty's activities fall within the sphere of a prosecutor's activities to which we accord absolute immunity. We conclude that Dillahunty is entitled, at least, to a defense of qualified good faith immunity and that Dillahunty's assertion of good faith immunity is sufficient to defeat Evans' claims. As the Supreme Court held in Harlow, [g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. Moreover, [r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by references to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. Id. 102 S.Ct. at 2739. 21 In the case at bar there is no evidence that Dillahunty acted maliciously or even recklessly. As Judge Arnold observed in this court's earlier opinion, whatever misstatements were made were promptly corrected. Evans v. Dillahunty, supra, 662 F.2d at 527. Dillahunty neither knew nor should have known that his actions might violate Evans' constitutional rights. Accordingly, we believe Dillahunty's good faith immunity as established by undisputed evidence serves to defeat Evans' claims. 22