226 A.3d 138
R.I.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Joseph and Anggita Diorio own a house abutting property owned by Hines Road, LLC; Hines built a large retaining wall/earthen slope adjacent to the Diorios’ lot.
- The Town of Cumberland issued multiple Notices of Violation, a stop-work order, and a March 31, 2011 settlement requiring Hines to bury the wall; Hines later covered the wall with soil creating an earthen slope.
- Hines sued the Town in Superior Court (resulting in a 2015 decision declaring compliance with the settlement).
- The Diorios sued Hines, the Town, Town Solicitor Thomas Hefner (official capacity), and Building & Zoning Official Neil Hall (official capacity) alleging declaratory/injunctive relief, negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and IIED.
- The Town defendants moved for summary judgment asserting prosecutorial (absolute) immunity; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for Solicitor Hefner and Building Official Hall and entered final judgment under Rule 54(b).
- The Supreme Court affirmed immunity for Solicitor Hefner, held that Hall was not entitled to prosecutorial immunity on this record, and vacated the judgment as to the Town (noting also presentment rules for municipal monetary claims under §45-15-5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Solicitor Hefner is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity | Diorios: Hefner had a mandatory statutory duty (§23-27.3-124.5) to bring an action, so his acts were non-discretionary and not protected | Town: Hefner performed prosecutorial/quasi-judicial functions (deciding whether/how to enforce notices and prosecute), so absolute immunity applies | Held: Affirmed — Hefner is protected by prosecutorial immunity; statute construed to allow prosecutorial discretion ("appropriate action") |
| Whether Building Official Hall is entitled to prosecutorial immunity | Diorios: Hall’s duties were administrative/non-discretionary (inspections, enforcement) and his failure to act is not prosecutorial | Town: Hall’s enforcement actions tied to the judicial process justify immunity | Held: Reversed — Hall did not carry the heavy burden to show a functional tie to judicial/prosecutorial duties; immunity does not apply on this record |
| Whether the Town is protected by derivative/official-capacity immunity | Diorios: Town sued for equitable and tort relief; Town not categorically immune | Town: Immunity of officials in their official capacities extends to the municipality | Held: Vacated as to Town — because Hall is not immune, the blanket immunity ruling for Town is vacated; municipal liability requires further proceedings (and presentment issues may independently affect monetary claims) |
| Effect of municipal presentment statute (§45-15-5) on Diorios’ monetary claims | Diorios: seek monetary and injunctive relief; §45-15-5 not necessarily applicable to equitable claims | Town: Counts seeking money damages must comply with §45-15-5 and be brought against the treasurer | Held: Court observed Counts 2–5 (monetary tort claims) are governed by §45-15-5 and may be abated/dismissed for failing to name the treasurer; Count 1 (declaratory/injunctive) is generally not subject to §45-15-5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines Road, LLC v. Hall, 113 A.3d 924 (R.I. 2015) (prior related decision in the same litigation)
- Goldstein v. Galvin, 719 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (discusses scope and functional approach to prosecutorial immunity)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (establishes absolute prosecutorial immunity doctrine)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (limits on extending absolute immunity; sparing recognition)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (functional test: focus on nature of function, not title)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (agency officials with functions analogous to prosecutors may be entitled to immunity)
- Penate v. Kaczmarek, 928 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2019) (emphasizes heavy burden on immunity seeker to prove absolute immunity applies)
- United Lending Corp. v. City of Providence, 827 A.2d 626 (R.I. 2003) (municipal monetary claims are governed by §45-15-5 presentment requirements)
- Calhoun v. City of Providence, 390 A.2d 350 (R.I. 1978) (policy rationale supporting immunity for public officials)