Opinion ID: 395173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immunity of Defendant Mitchell

Text: 14 Plaintiffs allege that defendant Mitchell is liable for malicious prosecution. In order to prevail on this claim, they must establish that the defendant instituted a criminal action against them. 9 Yet, instituting a criminal action is precisely the sort of activity that falls within the scope of absolute immunity granted to a prosecuting official such as the Attorney General. 10 Indeed, in concluding that absolute immunity was the settled rule at common law, the Supreme Court did so in the context of suits for malicious prosecution. Id. at 421-424, 96 S.Ct. at 990-92. 15 The District Court attempted to distinguish this case from one where absolute immunity is appropriate by arguing that it presents another twist. Dellums v. Powell, supra, 490 F.Supp. at 74. The plaintiffs do not allege merely a malicious prosecution, but rather a malicious prosecution with intent to violate the First Amendment. When the state's machinery is misdirected for the express purpose of violating a substantive constitutional right,    no society-wide interest in law enforcement can outweigh the imperative of a remedy in the courts. Id. 16 If accepted, the District Court's reasoning would debilitate the defense of absolute immunity. Any allegation of a constitutional tort of malicious prosecution necessarily asserts a deliberate violation of constitutional liberties. 11 Nonetheless, in delineating the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity, the Supreme Court has already struck a balance against providing a remedy in such cases. 17 To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest. It would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. 18 Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424 U.S. at 427-428, 96 S.Ct. at 993-94. 19 In their brief, 12 plaintiffs seek to distinguish Imbler v. Pachtman by noting that it retained the standard of qualified immunity for actions taken in an administrative or investigative capacity. See id. at 430-431, 96 S.Ct. at 995. However, the cases cited by plaintiffs involving this exception to the general rule of absolute immunity involved a prosecuting official's authorization of illegal investigative techniques, Halperin v. Kissinger, supra, his administrative orders to execute unlawful arrests, Apton v. Wilson, supra, and his giving a knowingly false answer to a district judge's question, Briggs v. Goodwin, supra. Never has a prosecutorial official been held liable for causing a prosecution to be brought. 13 20 In a suit for malicious prosecution, defendant Mitchell is therefore entitled to absolute immunity. Since the District Court's denial of defendant Mitchell's motion for judgment on the pleadings was premised on a rejection of absolute immunity, its decision should be reversed.