Anthony Draine v. Veronica Leavy, 504 F. App'x 494

Draine, a Tennessee parolee, sued Leavy and Currie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth, Eighth, and due-process claims arising from a mistaken record check that led to a parole violation report and warrant.
A routine records check by the Board revealed another individual named Anthony Draine with criminal charges; the Board staff directed Currie to issue a parole-violation report.
The Board issued a parole-violation report and warrant on October 2, 2009, resulting in Draine’s arrest and nearly thirty days of incarceration before the warrant was withdrawn.
Draine never received a preliminary hearing because the other Anthony Draine waived his right to one.
The district court dismissed the case, ruling that Leavy and Currie were absolutely immune under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity because their actions occurred in evaluating parole-violation terms.
The court of appeals reverses, holding that the acts of ordering and preparing a parole-violation report were not judicial in nature and therefore not covered by absolute quasi-judicial immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parole officers are absolutely immune for preparing a parole-violation report	Draine argues the acts were not judicial and thus not immune.	Leavy/Currie contend the acts were adjudicative and protected by quasi-judicial immunity.	No absolute immunity; remanded for further proceedings.
Whether the acts were sufficiently judicial in nature to warrant quasi-judicial immunity	actions were investigative, not adjudicative, thus not immunized.	actions were part of evaluating parole compliance and thus judicial.	Not judicial; warrants that are investigative do not fall within absolute immunity.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (absolute immunity for judicial officers)
DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 1999) (judicial function depends on nature of act, not its label)
Balas v. Leishman-Donaldson, 976 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1992) (parole/probation functions can be quasi-judicial; immunity depends on function)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (rejects absolute immunity where it would hinder probable-cause-like inquiry)
Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1997) (Supreme Court sparingly extends absolute immunity; depends on justification)
Dean v. Byer-ley, 354 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2004) (extends notion that certain adjudicative functions are immune)
Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1988) (parole-related immunity considerations in adjudicative context)
Walter v. Torres, 917 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1990) (parole-board-related immunity discussions)