Opinion ID: 604362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grand Jury Immunity

Text: 14 Although Davis concedes that grand jurors are entitled to the same immunity as judges, he nonetheless contends that they are not protected in this case because they acted without jurisdiction when they indicted him for acts which occurred outside Nye County. This argument is without merit. 15 Grand jurors perform quasi-judicial functions; therefore, they are entitled to immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 423 n. 20 (1976); see Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 509-10 (1978); see also Schlegel v. Bebout, 841 F.2d 937, 942 (9th Cir.1988) (absolute immunity will be granted to those who fall within one of the conscribed areas of judicial or prosecutorial immunity). 16 The Nye County grand jury acted within its jurisdiction. The grand jury may inquire into all public offenses triable in the district court or in a justice's court, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court for which it is impaneled. Nev.Rev.Stat. § 172.105 (emphasis added). Even if we accept the rule Davis posits, i.e., a grand jury has no jurisdiction over acts that occur outside the county for which the jury is impaneled, the Nye County grand jury had jurisdiction, and is therefore entitled to immunity. In his complaint, Davis states that his alleged misconduct was the result of travel from Beatty, Nevada, ... to Tonopah where [he] had official business to conduct.... Because both towns are located in Nye County, and because the travel vouchers were submitted in Nye County, the grand jury acted within its jurisdiction. 17 We also reject Davis's argument that the grand jury acted in excess of its jurisdiction. A grand jury that is impaneled for a specific limited purpose shall not inquire into matters not related to that purpose. Nev.Rev.Stat. § 172.047. Neither Davis's complaint nor his brief alleges facts to support this claim. 18 Indeed, Davis does not dispute the grand jury's responsibility to investigate whether a crime was committed and its duty to investigate his past activities. Rather, he claims the grand jury failed in its responsibility to protect him from unfounded and arbitrary criminal prosecution. The case he cites in support of that proposition, United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), does not hold grand jurors liable for returning an unfounded indictment. Calandra merely states that one of the grand jury's responsibilities is to help ensure that unfounded prosecutions do not occur. Id. A grand jury may return an unfounded indictment on occasion. That does not mean, however, that the grand jury is subject to civil liability. 19 Therefore, because the grand jury fulfilled the duty for which it was impaneled, we affirm dismissal of the complaint against the grand jury.