Karen Slater v. Harold Clarke
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23712
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- This case concerns absolute immunity for state officials in extradition decisions.
- Tavares, released from Massachusetts prison, had a violent history and fled; warrants issued for new charges.
- Massachusetts officials located Tavares in Washington and allegedly decided on a limited extradition from New England states, not from Washington.
- Tavares later murdered in Washington, prompting civil rights and negligence claims by victims’ representatives.
- Plaintiffs allege 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 violations and negligence; defendants moved to dismiss based on absolute immunity; district court denied; defendants appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does extradition decision qualify for absolute immunity? | Tavares case not prosecutorial; no immunity should apply. | Extradition decision is intimately related to judicial process and entitled to absolute immunity. | Yes; whether not extradite or limited extradition is absolutely immune. |
| Is the extradition decision an activity intimately associated with the judicial phase? | Decision to extradite is administrative, not judicial. | Decision is a next step in judicial process and intimately associated with it. | Yes; the decision is intimately associated with the judicial phase. |
| Can non-prosecutor officials be immune for extradition decisions? | Authority to decide breadth of extradition may rest outside prosecutors; immunity questionable. | Functionally equivalent to prosecutorial decisions; entitled to immunity. | Yes; absolute immunity applies notwithstanding official title. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for absolute immunity determinations? | Standard should be de novo review with strict scrutiny of immunity. | De novo review; presumption favoring qualified immunity unless strong justification for absolute immunity. | De novo review; we affirm immunity where function is prosecutorial and intimately connected to judicial process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (prosecutorial immunity extends to functions intimately associated with the judicial process)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions even if not in courtroom)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (balancing of factors in prosecutorial decisions; immunity extends to related actions)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (absolute immunity for initiating prosecutions and related acts)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (immunity for presenting evidence and other prosecutorial acts)
- Roe v. City and County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 1997) (illustrates prosecutorial decisions and immunity scope)