733 F.3d 804
9th Cir.2013Background
- Stapley, a Maricopa County Supervisor, alleges that County Attorney Andrew Thomas and deputy Lisa Aubuchon (with others) used criminal and civil processes to harass him as part of a political campaign against Board members and allies of Sheriff Arpaio.
- Thomas and Aubuchon pursued baseless criminal investigations and then filed a federal civil RICO complaint naming Stapley and others; the RICO suit was filed despite internal and external warnings that it lacked evidentiary and legal support.
- The RICO complaint was dismissed voluntarily less than four months after filing; defendants held a press conference mischaracterizing DOJ involvement.
- The Arizona State Bar later disbarred Thomas and Aubuchon, finding the RICO filing frivolous, unethical, and harmful; the disbarment findings emphasized failure to investigate and misuse of public resources.
- Stapley sued under § 1983 and state law; district court denied Thomas and Aubuchon absolute prosecutorial immunity for claims arising from the RICO filing. Defendants appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas and Aubuchon are absolutely immune from § 1983 and parallel state-law claims arising from filing the civil RICO suit | Stapley: the RICO filing was a non-prosecutorial, harassing act and is not protected by absolute immunity | Thomas/Aubuchon: prosecutorial immunity covers initiation of prosecutions and analogous enforcement litigation, including civil RICO suits | Court: Not entitled to absolute immunity — the RICO suit was not sufficiently analogous to prosecutorial functions and defendants acted as private plaintiffs and circumvented judicial safeguards |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for activities intimately associated with judicial phase of criminal process)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (agency officials performing functions analogous to prosecutors may get absolute immunity)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. en banc) (prosecutor forfeits absolute immunity when sidestepping judicial process)
- Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832 (9th Cir.) (government attorneys in civil tax-enforcement suits previously afforded absolute immunity)
- Flood v. Harrington, 532 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir.) (earlier broad statements extending immunity to civil enforcement litigation)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court on limits and allocation of burden for prosecutorial immunity)