695 F.3d 211
2d Cir.2012Background
- Gross, an elderly New York resident, was placed in a Connecticut conservatorship by Probate Court; Newman represented him in the involuntary action.
- Donovan was appointed conservator of Gross’s person and estate and housed him in Grove Manor in a locked ward for about ten months with restricted visitation.
- Gross challenged the conservatorship via habeas corpus; district court dismissed claims against Donovan, Newman, and Grove Manor on quasi-judicial immunity grounds.
- Connecticut Supreme Court held conservators have immunity only when acting with Probate Court authorization; court-appointed attorneys for conservatees have no immunity; Grove Manor not entitled to immunity.
- This court certified questions to determine federal quasi-judicial immunity for these actors and remanded state-law claims to the district court where appropriate.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit adopts the Connecticut Supreme Court framework, vacates the district court’s ruling on federal claims against Donovan, Newman, and Grove Manor, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conservators have federal quasi-judicial immunity when acting under Probate Court authorization | Gross's position: broader immunity for Donovan. | Donovan: immunity covers acts authorized/approved by Probate Court. | Immunity limited to acts authorized/approved by Probate Court. |
| Whether court-appointed attorneys for conservatees have federal quasi-judicial immunity | Weber (Gross) argues for broader immunity. | Newman: no broader immunity; consistent with Connecticut law. | No federal quasi-judicial immunity for Newman. |
| Whether Grove Manor enjoys federal quasi-judicial immunity | Grove Manor actions were under court order; immunity may apply. | Not acting as the Probate Court’s agent; not immune. | Grove Manor not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. |
| What is the proper scope of state-law quasi-judicial immunity for conservators under Connecticut law | Broad immunity under state law should guide federal immunity. | Follow Connecticut Supreme Court’s Gross II framework limiting immunity. | Adopt Connecticut framework; state-law claims remanded. |
| Role of nursing homes in the conservatorship system and immunity | Nursing home should be treated as state-actor with immunity if acting under court order. | Grove Manor not insurer of court authority; no immunity. | Nursing home not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (six-factor test for quasi-judicial immunity)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (limits broad immunities in judicial function)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (immunity anchored in common-law traditions)
- Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1979) (appointed counsel lacks absolute immunity)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (mere belief in court sanctioning authority is not immunity)
- City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981) (statutory immunities not to be expanded unnecessarily)
- Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (conservators’ immunity limited by scope of authority)
- United States v. Hemmen, 51 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 1995) (bankruptcy trustees typically immune when acting under court order)
- Gregory v. United States, 942 F.2d 1498 (10th Cir. 1991) (trustee immunity within scope of authority)