Opinion ID: 156718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Immunity Rulings

Text: We review the district court’s immunity rulings de novo. See Gagan v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1475 (10th Cir. 1994) (absolute immunity); Radecki v. Barela, No. 96-2297, 1998 WL 334490, at  (10th Cir. June 24, 1998) (qualified immunity). -3-
Mr. Petersen sued Gene Strate and John Shindler, attorneys for Carbon County, because they filed the drug charges twice and because they authorized destruction of the evidence after the charges were initially dismissed. Mr. Petersen sued Scott Johansen, attorney for Emery County, for conspiring to have his “parole legally violated” despite knowing material evidence supporting the drug charges had been destroyed. R. Vol. 1, doc. 2 at 11. The district court granted these defendants absolute immunity on the basis that their acts were taken in pursuit of their prosecutorial duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976). We agree that the actions Mr. Petersen complains of were taken in the defendants’ performance of “the traditional functions of an advocate.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 118 S. Ct. 502, 510 (1997). No error occurred.
Mr. Petersen sued William Barnes, a Sargeant with a city police department who participated in drug investigations, and Don Kelley, supervisor of the Carbon County Drug Task Force, on the basis that they did not fully investigate the facts, made no tapes of his actual involvement in drug deals, conspired to have the section 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii) charges filed against him, and retaliated against him for having his felony charges reversed by refiling the drug charges. He also -4- alleged they violated his constitutional rights by using a confidential informant who was a felon and who is no longer being used as a confidential informant. Mr. Petersen alleged Terry Marshall, a parole agent for the state department of corrections, improperly initiated parole revocation proceedings against him based on the drug charges. The district court granted these defendants qualified immunity. To determine whether the district court correctly granted these defendants qualified immunity, we must first examine whether Mr. Petersen “allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991). If Mr. Petersen has alleged such a violation, we will then look at whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. See id. at 232; County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1714 n.5 (1998). None of the acts taken by defendants Barnes and Kelley indicate any constitutional violation. They investigated possible drug violations. The record contains no information that they conducted these investigations in any unconstitutional manner. The Constitution does not require that drug transactions be taped. The use of a confidential informant with a criminal history does not violate constitutional strictures. See, e.g., United States v. Wesevich, 666 F.2d 984, 985 (5th Cir. 1982) (noting that as “confidential informants are -5- generally involved in illegal activities themselves and hence are not model citizens whose trustworthiness is above reproach,” any testimony given by these individuals at trial must “be carefully scrutinized” with “full cross examination”). Defendant Marshall’s initiation of parole revocation proceedings prior to any conviction on the charges leading to his action did not violate any constitutional guarantees. See, e.g., United States v. Cantley, 130 F.3d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that, as defendant had not yet been convicted, state had to set forth additional evidence to show he violated his parole conditions) , cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1098 (1998); Perry v. United States Parole Comm’n, 831 F.2d 811, 813 (8th Cir. 1987) (Parole Commission may consider dismissed charges as grounds for parole revocation). Defendants did not violate any clearly established law. Therefore, the district court properly granted qualified immunity to these defendants. Mr. Petersen appears to have sued Carbon County on the grounds that it was responsible for instituting the policies which lead to the county employee defendants’ unconstitutional acts. As these defendants engaged in no unconstitutional acts, Mr. Petersen cannot show any government policy or custom that lead to a constitutional violation for which the county should be held responsible. See Winters v. Board of County Comm’rs, 4 F.3d 848, 855 (10th Cir. 1993) (county’s liability can be established by showing constitutional -6- violation was the “result of a government custom or policy”) (citing Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)).