Javier Torres v. Terry Goddard
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12284
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Arizona Financial Crimes Task Force obtained six "criteria-based" seizure warrants (2001–2006) directing Western Union to divert person-to-person wire transfers meeting state, amount, and time criteria into a detention account; warrants alleged high likelihood transfers were tied to drug/human smuggling.
- Holmes, an Assistant Attorney General and civil-forfeiture prosecutor, supervised preparation, reviewed affidavits, applied for and served the warrants; Western Union’s system automatically detained matching transfers.
- A call center staffed by Arizona officials could release transfers shown to be legitimate; otherwise funds were sent to the county superior court and forfeiture proceedings could follow.
- Plaintiffs Torres and Rivadeneyra had transfers seized under two warrants and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming seizures lacked particularized probable cause; they sought damages and class certification.
- District court granted summary judgment to Holmes and Goddard based on absolute immunity; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for qualified-immunity and other determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Are prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for civil forfeiture proceedings? | Absolute immunity should not extend beyond criminal prosecutions. | Civil forfeiture is analogous to prosecution; absolute immunity needed to protect prosecutorial functions. | Yes; absolute immunity is available in civil forfeiture (Butz/Imbler analysis applied). |
| 2. Is Holmes’s preparation and application for seizure warrants protected? | Holmes used warrants as investigative sweeps, not to initiate forfeiture, so no absolute immunity. | Preparing/applying for seizure warrants is advocacy integral to initiating in rem forfeiture. | Held protected: preparation/application are traditional advocate functions and absolutely immune. |
| 3. Is Holmes’s service/execution of self-executing seizure warrants protected? | Service/execution were necessary prosecution steps and thus immune. | Service was part of initiating forfeiture; immunity should cover it. | Not absolutely immune: serving/executing are police-type functions; Holmes only gets the immunity appropriate to that function (qualified immunity remanded). |
| 4. Is Attorney General Goddard absolutely immune for supervisory acquiescence/ratification? | Goddard could have stopped the program and is liable for supervisory failure. | Supervisory decisions allowing prosecutorial initiation of forfeiture are protected; Van de Kamp extends immunity to supervision of prosecutorial acts. | Mixed: supervision of preparation/application is absolutely immune; supervision/ratification of service/execution is not absolutely immune. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (establishes absolute immunity for prosecutors for functions intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (extends absolute immunity to agency officials performing functions analogous to prosecutors)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (functional test: absolute immunity for traditional advocate functions; no immunity when acting as witness or non-advocate)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (supervisory prosecutors protected when conduct concerns trial-related advocacy/evidence)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor not absolutely immune for investigative functions normally performed by police)
- Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402 (3d Cir. 1991) (absolute immunity in civil forfeiture context)
- KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes warrants obtained for prosecution from those used for collateral investigation)
- Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2005) (absolute-immunity analysis and function-focus)
- United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971) (in rem forfeiture analogous to criminal proceedings)
- Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (act-by-act absolute-immunity evaluation)