803 F. Supp. 2d 319
M.D. Penn.2011Background
- Festa alleges police stopped and searched her car and home on May 13, 2008, interrogated her without an attorney, and threatened to remove her children if she did not consent.
- Ware, an assistant district attorney, is alleged to have agreed with police to stop, search, and seize Festa and provided information regarding Coss possibly being at Festa’s home.
- Police had a warrant to arrest Edward Coss; Ware notified officers and had prior and ongoing involvement evidenced by phone calls and presence at scenes.
- The Dunmore officers settled all claims against them; Ware remains as the sole defendant, pursuing qualified and absolute immunities and potential liability theories.
- Plaintiff asserts supervisory liability and civil conspiracy theories under § 1983; Ware moves for summary judgment on liability and defenses, including absolute prosecutorial immunity.
- The court concludes there is a genuine issue on supervisory liability, denies absolute immunity, and grants summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Festa establish supervisory liability against Ware under §1983? | Festa shows Ware directed or acquiesced in the searches and seizures. | Ware did not participate in or know of the constitutional wrongs; no supervisory liability. | Summary judgment denied; sufficient circumstantial evidence supports supervisory liability. |
| Is Ware entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for the alleged acts? | Ware’s investigative/administrative actions are not protected by absolute immunity. | Ware performed acts intimately associated with the judicial process and is immune. | Absolute immunity denied; summary judgment on this ground denied. |
| Is Festa’s false imprisonment claim (and any civil conspiracy claim) viable against Ware? | There was detention without consent and possible concerted action with officers. | No evidence of malice or conspiracy; consent defenses and professional justification negate liability. | False imprisonment claim survives as to Ware? No; the court grants summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim at the state-law level; civil conspiracy denied due to lack of malice. |
| Are there immunities or exemptions applicable to the state-law tort claims against Ware? | State-law claims may proceed notwithstanding §1983 immunities. | PTCA immunity or other immunity bars state-law claims. | Court declines to apply broader immunity analysis after dismissing the state-law claims; remaining §1983 claims proceed while false imprisonment is resolved in Ware’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions balanced by function performed)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (immunity for acts intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial immunity scope in third-party liability contexts)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement or acquiescence)
- Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997) (acquiescence can be inferred from circumstances; knowledge may be inferred)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material facts and genuine issue for trial; summary judgment proper only if no triable issue)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (standing and factual considerations in summary judgment context)
- McCabe v. Village Voice, Inc., 550 F.Supp.525 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (consent defense and substantiation standards for false imprisonment)