Opinion ID: 494567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Common Law Claims Against the District of Columbia

Text: 38 Dant challenges the district court's dismissal on its own motion of all claims against the District without affording Dant an opportunity to oppose the decision. Although we are mindful of his procedural rights, we can discern no cognizable prejudice to Dant resulting from the district court's dismissal sua sponte of all claims against the District. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 (harmless error). Compare Dougherty v. Harper's Magazine Co., 537 F.2d 758, 761 (3d Cir.1976). 39 As the district court correctly held, Dant's common law claim for malicious prosecution is barred under local law by absolute prosecutorial immunity. Stebbins v. WMATA, 495 A.2d 741, 743-44 (D.C.App.1985). In Stebbins the District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered a malicious prosecution claim brought against the District of Columbia by a WMATA patron accused of bus fare evasion in violation of section 44-224. Plaintiff Stebbins had been acquitted because the criminal trial court decided to [g]ive you a break this time. Id. at 742. The Stebbins court adopted this court's distinction between a prosecutor's absolutely immune advocacy functions, and his qualifiedly immune administrative functions, id. at 743-44 (citing Briggs v. Goodwin, 569 F.2d 10, 19-20 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 3089, 57 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1978)), and held that the decision to commence Stebbins' prosecution was absolutely immune under local law from a claim for malicious prosecution. 40 Dant's claim against the District for false arrest and imprisonment has no legal merit, moreover, because there was probable cause. For purposes of deciding this part of the appeal, we treat the district court's order as a summary judgment on uncontested facts. Dant concedes that he saw the Stop, See Attendant sign but nonetheless walked away. Appellee Lawrence then detained Dant and asked him, in essence, whether he had not just violated D.C.Code Sec. 44-224 (1981) (fare evasion). Dant did not respond credibly. There was a sufficient basis in these circumstances for Lawrence to arrest Dant. See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 175 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916, 98 S.Ct. 3146, 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978). We therefore affirm the district court's sua sponte dismissal of appellant's common law claim against the District for false arrest and imprisonment. 41 Count four (abuse of process) alleges that [d]efendants [sic] District of Columbia prosecuted plaintiff solely in furtherance of their ulterior motive to compel [plaintiff to sign a] civil release of WMATA's liability. Complaint at 9. The district court dismissed this claim on the authority of Stebbins, and we agree. The rationale applied by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in that case extends to Dant's common law claim for abuse of process because, like the malicious prosecution claim, this claim is a challenge to the prosecutor's decision to prosecute. As we noted in Briggs, 569 F.2d at 19-20, when he acts in his capacity as advocate, a prosecutor's absolute immunity extends so far as necessary to protect [his] decision with respect to the initiation and conduct of particular cases (explaining Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)). Accord McGruder v. Necaise, 733 F.2d 1146, 1148 (5th Cir.1984) (prosecutor who allegedly commenced prosecution because prisoner suffering serious burn injuries while in jail would not drop a damages suit is absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983).