Adamou v. Doyle, 17-255

Plaintiff-Appellee Idri ssa Adamou sued Detective Edward J. Doyle under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging harm from Doyle’s grand jury testimony.
Doyle moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing absolute and qualified immunity.
The district court denied Doyle’s 12(b)(6) motion on March 14, 2016, and later issued a clarifying order on January 12, 2017.
Doyle filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court denied on March 9, 2017.
Doyle appealed; this Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the January 12, 2017 clarification (appeal untimely as to the March 14, 2016 denial) but had jurisdiction over the timely appeal from the March 9, 2017 Rule 12(c) denial.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether Doyle was entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and concluded the claims were based on Doyle’s grand jury testimony, entitling him to absolute immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court had appellate jurisdiction over the January 12, 2017 order	The clarification altered rights such that the appeal was timely	The January 12 order merely clarified the March 14, 2016 denial and did not restart the appeal clock	Appeal of the Jan. 12 order was untimely; jurisdiction exists only over the timely appeal from the Mar. 9, 2017 order
Whether Doyle is entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly false grand jury testimony	Adamou contends claims are not barred by absolute immunity because testimony was allegedly false and actionable	Doyle argues Rehberg grants absolute immunity to grand jury witnesses for testimony, barring § 1983 claims based on that testimony	Court held Doyle has absolute immunity because the claims are based on his grand jury testimony
Whether qualified immunity applies if absolute immunity does not	N/A (absolute immunity dispositive)	Doyle alternatively asserted qualified immunity	Court did not need to reach qualified immunity after finding absolute immunity

In re Am. Safety Indem. Co., 502 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (clarifies when a later district-court clarification restarts the appellate clock)
Farkas v. Rumore, 101 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 1996) (discusses finality and appealability of district-court orders)
Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for absolute-immunity determinations)
Benzman v. Whitman, 523 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for qualified-immunity determinations)
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct.) (absolute immunity protects grand jury witnesses from § 1983 claims based on their testimony)
Coggins v. Buonora, 776 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2015) (applies Rehberg’s ‘‘based on’’ test to determine absolute-immunity scope)