David Sample v. City of Woodbury
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16378
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Woodbury contracted the Eckberg law firm to prosecute certain city criminal matters; firm attorneys also represented the alleged victim (J.D.) in related civil domestic matters.
- Eckberg attorneys obtained police reports and filed a criminal complaint against Sample while simultaneously representing J.D.; state court later dismissed the criminal charges for prosecutorial misconduct violating Sample’s due-process rights.
- Sample sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and raised supplemental state-law claims (abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligent failure to train/establish conflicts policy) against the Attorneys and the City.
- District court dismissed all claims: it held the Attorneys were absolutely immune for prosecutorial acts and that immunity extended derivatively to the City; it also dismissed the negligent failure-to-train claim under Minnesota’s statutory discretionary-immunity doctrine.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal as to the Attorneys but reversed the district court’s grant of absolute immunity to the City and remanded for further proceedings against the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Attorneys’ filing of criminal charges is barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity | Sample: filing was to advance a private client’s civil interests and thus outside prosecutorial duties | Attorneys: filing is a prosecutorial function; absolute immunity applies even if improper or malicious | Court: Filing is intimately associated with judicial phase; absolute immunity bars claims against the Attorneys |
| Whether claims that Attorneys failed to develop a conflicts policy are protected by absolute immunity | Sample: policy-development is administrative (no absolute immunity) | Defendants: creating a conflicts policy requires legal judgment and discretion; immunity applies | Court: Absolute immunity covers policy-development decisions; those claims dismissed as to the Attorneys |
| Whether the City is absolutely immune from suit on Sample’s § 1983 and state-law claims | Sample: City is not immune; municipal liability proper where policy/custom caused injury | City/District Court: treated City as immune on same basis as Attorneys | Court: Municipalities do not enjoy absolute immunity under § 1983; reversal and remand as to the City |
| Whether statutory discretionary immunity bars negligent-failure-to-train claim | Sample did not contest dismissal on appeal | City: district court found statutory discretionary immunity barred the claim | Court: Sample waived challenge to that dismissal; district court ruling on that ground stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute immunity for prosecutors for initiating prosecution and presenting the case)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (immunity for prosecutor’s advocacy-related functions; functional approach)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (immunity not defeated by improper motives)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (absolute immunity can extend to certain supervisory/legal policy decisions)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (municipalities do not have absolute or qualified immunity under § 1983)
- Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622 (policy-of-the-municipality liability and importance of remedies against municipalities)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires official policy or custom)
- Reasonover v. St. Louis County, 447 F.3d 569 (improper motive does not defeat prosecutorial immunity)