Opinion ID: 173410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Absolute ImmunityMs. Eisenman and Dr. Albritton

Text: Next, we address the Jensens' claim that the district court erred by granting Ms. Eisenman and Dr. Albritton absolute immunity from this § 1983 suit. [3] We review de novo a district court's conclusion that a defendant is entitled to absolute immunity. Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 908 (10th Cir.2000). `[A]bsolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, so long as the official's actions were within the scope of the immunity.' Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377, 1381 (10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 n. 13, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)). Under our functional approach to claims of absolute immunity, we examine whether the particular actions of the defendant are within the scope of the claimed immunity, not whether the status of the defendant or the office that she holds entitles her to protection. See, e.g., Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.2005).
State attorneys ... who perform functions analogous to those of a prosecutor in initiating and pursuing civil and administrative enforcement proceedings are absolutely immune from suit under section 1983 concerning activities intimately associated with the judicial process. Scott, 216 F.3d at 908 (internal quotations omitted). Such government actors are not immune, however, for actions that are primarily investigative or administrative in nature. Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1484, 1490 (10th Cir.1991). To distinguish between actions that are intimately associated with the judicial process and those that are investigative or administrative in nature, we look to whether the actions can rightly be considered advocacy because that is the prosecutor's main function and the one most akin to his quasi-judicial role. Id. Furthermore, absolute immunity may attach even to... administrative or investigative activities `when these functions are necessary so that a prosecutor may fulfill his function as an officer of the court.' Id. (quoting Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 693 (10th Cir.1990)). The Jensens base their claims against Ms. Eisenman on: (1) misrepresentations she allegedly made to the juvenile court; (2) her research regarding the American Academy of Pediatrics's guidelines for clinicians who render pediatric care and her resistance to the Jensens' attempt to have P.J. treated by doctors who were not qualified under those guidelines; and (3) misrepresentations she allegedly made to the Salt Lake County District Attorney. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that any statements Ms. Eisenman made to the juvenile court were made in her role as an advocate for the state's interest in the custody dispute. Likewise, any research Ms. Eisenman performed regarding the appropriate type of doctor for P.J. and any actions she took to ensure that P.J. was treated by an appropriately credentialed doctor were intimately associated with the judicial process and Ms. Eisenman's role as an advocate for the state. Therefore, those actions are clearly within the scope of Ms. Eisenman's claimed absolute immunity. The protection afforded Ms. Eisenman's statements to the Salt Lake County District Attorney, however, is less clear. The Jensens argue that by making misrepresentations to the Salt Lake County District Attorney which eventually led to their criminal prosecution, Ms. Eisenman was acting as a complaining witness rather than as a prosecutor. Furthermore, the Jensens correctly point out that a complaining witness is not entitled to absolute immunity. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340-41, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). Under the circumstances of this case, however, we agree with the district court that Ms. Eisenman's presentation of facts to the Salt Lake County District Attorney was intimately associated with the juvenile court process and was done in Ms. Eisenman's role as an advocate for the state. The day Ms. Eisenman met with the Salt Lake County District Attorney, the juvenile court had ordered the Jensens to present P.J. to the court for the purpose of beginning chemotherapy treatment. The Jensens were aware of this juvenile court order and had, in fact, stated their intention not to comply with it. Furthermore, the Jensens admit they were attempting to hide P.J. from state authorities in order to prevent the effectuation of the juvenile court order. Under these circumstances, Ms. Eisenman's presentation of evidence to the Salt Lake County District Attorney was necessary to effectuate the juvenile court's order and to pursue the interest of the state in ensuring that P.J. receive treatment for his life-threatening illness. Accordingly, these actions were necessary to fulfill both her roles as officer of the court and advocate for the state, and are therefore protected by absolute immunity.
Like the absolute immunity afforded prosecutors who perform actions intimately associated with the judicial process, [t]he immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings is well established in the common law.... Spielman, 873 F.2d at 1382. Testifying witness immunity is supported by the public policy of preserving the truthfinding process from distortions caused by fear of suit. Id. The Jensens' claims against Dr. Albritton center on her testimony before the juvenile court; the Jensens allege that her testimony contained various misrepresentations and had more the flavor of someone working to perpetuate proceedings ( i.e., a complaining witness), than merely providing objective information. This contention reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the well-established immunity for testifying witnesses. A witness is absolutely immune from civil liability based on any testimony the witness provides during a judicial proceeding even if the witness knew the statements were false and made them with malice. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 332, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). Thus, even if Dr. Albritton's testimony was aimed at perpetuating the custody proceedings against the Jensens, she is protected by absolute immunity. Accordingly, Dr. Albritton is absolutely immune from any claims against her in this § 1983 suit.