Barnett v. Marquis
16 F. Supp. 3d 1218
D. Or.2014Background
- Plaintiff Steven M. Barnett is a Seaside Police Department officer and former detective who ran for Clatsop County Sheriff in 2011–2012.
- After Barnett published a newspaper article critical of District Attorney Joshua Marquis, Marquis and Chief Deputy Ronald Brown told the Seaside Police Department they would not "vouch for" Barnett's credibility and would not accept cases where he was an essential witness.
- Brown told police he would not "correspond" or "work with" Barnett on investigations and preferred another detective for communication on cases.
- Barnett alleges these actions prevented him from performing investigatory duties and damaged his employment and reputation, asserting § 1983 claims for First Amendment retaliation/free speech and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing absolute prosecutorial immunity; the court granted the motion and dismissed all claims on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Barnett as a witness | Marquis and Brown unlawfully refused to use Barnett as a witness (retaliation / due process) | Decision not to use a witness is prosecutorial and entitled to absolute immunity | Court: Absolute immunity applies; decision analogous to prosecutor's evaluation in Roe |
| Instructing Seaside PD to reassign Barnett's responsibilities | Instruction to reassign duties unlawfully harmed Barnett's employment and reputation | Directing which officers DA will work with is prosecutorial and immune conduct | Court: Absolute immunity applies; distinguishable from defamatory/employment-sabotage cases like Botello and Meek |
| Refusal to work with Barnett during investigations | Refusal was retaliatory and violated free speech/due process rights | Choice of whom to work with is prosecutorial discretion entitled to absolute immunity | Court: Absolute immunity applies; such decisions are part of prosecutorial function (Buckley) |
| Instructing DA office employees not to use Barnett | Communicating refusal to use Barnett to staff perpetuated the alleged constitutional harms | Communicating and instructing staff about witness use is part of the same immune prosecutorial function | Court: Absolute immunity applies to communications/instructions to staff as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors absolutely immune for initiating prosecution and presenting the State's case)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (absolute immunity for prosecutorial conduct intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (acts as advocate entitled to absolute immunity, including evaluation of evidence)
- Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578 (prosecutor's professional evaluation of a witness entitled to absolute immunity)
- Fletcher v. Kalina, 93 F.3d 653 (distinguishes investigative/administrative acts from advocatory acts for immunity purposes)