Opinion ID: 795902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Absolute Immunity From Yarris's Pennsylvania Law Claims

Text: 49 The Amended Complaint also alleges that the ADAs' actions violated certain of Yarris's rights under Pennsylvania law, which he describes as his rights to be free from unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution and unlawful incarceration, defamation, assault, battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation, abuse of public trust and public office, breach of fiduciary and governmental trust, invasion of privacy, unlawful restraint, abuse of process, misuse of process, and malicious prosecution, and to due process of law under the Pennsylvania Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Am. Compl.¶ 99.) The ADAs sought dismissal of these claims on the basis of state law immunity. 50 In denying absolute immunity generally, the District Court did not rule on the ADAs' request for immunity from Yarris's Pennsylvania law claims. Rather, the District Court's analysis focused solely on the ADAs' immunity with respect to the alleged violations of Yarris's rights under the United States Constitution. Because the District Court did not rule on whether the ADAs are immune from Yarris's Pennsylvania law claims, we will remand this issue for consideration by the District Court in the first instance. 51