404 F. App'x 540
2d Cir.2011Background
- Kent sued Cardone, Drought, Stymus, Leo, and Orleans County over a January 2006 logging contract and ensuing arrest of Kent.
- Kent alleged Cardone threatened to indict him unless he paid money to Drought, which Kent deemed excessive.
- Cardone presented charges to a grand jury after Kent refused payment, and Kent was arrested on multiple criminal charges later dismissed.
- The district court denied Cardone’s motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity; ruling addressed a 12(b)(6) dismissal issue.
- The Second Circuit held that prosecutors have absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions engaged in during judicial proceedings, and reversed the district court’s denial.
- The court evaluated immunity under a functional approach, concluding Cardone’s conduct fell within prosecutorial advocacy connected to the judicial process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cardone is absolutely immune from suit for prosecutorial acts | Kent argues no absolute immunity for alleged prosecutorial misconduct. | Cardone argues absolute immunity covers prosecutorial acts in seeking indictment and related grand jury conduct. | Yes; Cardone entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial actions. |
| Whether alleged grand jury interactions negated immunity | Kent contends grand jury conduct could be prosecutorial misconduct not covered by immunity. | Cardone contends immunity extends to pre-indictment grand jury-related actions. | Yes; prosecutorial actions before and during the grand jury remain immune. |
| Whether the district court properly denied immunity at the 12(b)(6) stage | Kent contends denial was correct because immunity does not apply. | Cardone contends immunity defeats the complaint irrespective of other claims. | No; the district court’s denial was reversed; immunity applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts in judicial proceedings)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (immunity extends to prosecutors as advocates in prosecution)
- Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1981) (plea bargaining entitled to absolute immunity)
- Schloss v. Bouse, 876 F.2d 287 (2d Cir. 1989) (prosecutor’s conditional releases tied to not prosecuting qualified for immunity)
- Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1987) (immunity covers filing criminal information and procuring arrest warrants)
- Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139 (2d Cir. 1995) (absolute immunity for presentation of evidence to grand jury)
- Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 1995) (immunity for malicious prosecution and grand jury conduct)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (recognition of immunity shielding false testimony to grand jury)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, --- S. Ct. --- (2009) (functional approach to determine whether immunity applies to prosecutorial decisions)