James Bell McCoy v. Craig Watkins, 05-14-00844-CV

McCoy pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, receiving a 35-year sentence.
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in 2007.
McCoy’s 2007 petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
McCoy unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief in 2011 (McCoy v. Thaler) on ex post facto grounds.
On June 18, 2013, McCoy filed this suit against the judges and prosecutors alleging malicious prosecution based on later-enacted limitations.
The trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to absolute immunity; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity.	McCoy contends immunity does not apply.	Judicial and prosecutorial acts are absolutely immune.	Absolute immunity bars the suit; court lacks jurisdiction.

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (judicial immunity protects acts within jurisdiction)
Font v. Carr, 867 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (prosecutorial immunity for activities in the judicial phase)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutorial absolute immunity for initiating and presenting a case)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (scope of absolute immunity for public officials)
Oden v. Reader, 935 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996) (Texas appellate treatment of absolute immunity for judges/prosecutors)
Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo; pleadings evidentiary focus)