Giraldo v. Kessler
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19383
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Kessler and Espinal (Queens County ADAs) appeal denial of absolute immunity in a §1983 suit brought by Giraldo after interrogation following Monserrate's arrest.
- Appellee Giraldo alleged she was unlawfully detained and aggressively interrogated by police and prosecutors after Monserrate's injury incident on December 19, 2008.
- Medical staff initially treated Giraldo for a laceration; domestic violence concerns were raised, leading to police involvement and detentions.
- Appellee was questioned at the hospital and at the 105th Precinct, then interrogated for two hours by appellants at the Queens DA's office after initial police questioning.
- Monserrate was arraigned the same day; public records confirm related charges and bail, with judicial notice taken of public proceedings.
- The district court denied absolute immunity; the court held the interrogation could proceed as §1983 claims, with defendants liable in their individual capacities but immune in their official capacities; the appeal seeks reversal on immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants are absolutely immune for interrogating Giraldo. | Giraldo argues immunity does not apply to the interrogation. | Kessler/Espinal contend the interrogations were integral to prosecutorial function and entitled to absolute immunity. | Absolute immunity applied to the interrogation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (advocacy-related prosecutorial immunity applies in court and pre-prosecution actions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (distinguishes investigative vs. advocatory acts; some acts during investigation are not immune)
- Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 1995) (functional approach to absolute immunity; objective standard)
- Smith v. Garretto, 147 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1998) (interviewing witnesses may be within immunity line depending on phase)
- Warney v. Monroe County, 587 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2009) (post-trial and investigative actions may still be within advocacy function)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (investigative acts vs. advocatory acts; line drawn for immunity)