824 F.3d 534
5th Cir.2016Background
- Kristin Loupe testified at a bond hearing; ADA Robin O’Bannon questioned her about an earlier domestic dispute involving Loupe’s then-boyfriend.
- Loupe denied that her boyfriend hit her in the face; the presiding judge refused O’Bannon’s request to order Loupe arrested.
- O’Bannon then ordered a sheriff’s deputy to arrest Loupe without a warrant; Loupe was jailed in harsh conditions and later treated for cold-related injuries.
- The DA’s office charged Loupe with filing a false report; she pleaded not guilty and was acquitted after the prosecution stipulated her innocence.
- Loupe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law; the district court dismissed all claims against O’Bannon on absolute prosecutorial immunity grounds.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the malicious-prosecution claim but reversed as to the warrantless-arrest claim, holding no absolute immunity for ordering an immediate warrantless arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prosecutor is absolutely immune for ordering a warrantless arrest | Loupe: ordering the arrest violated rights and is actionable; prosecutor should not be absolutely immune for this conduct | O’Bannon: ordering arrest was part of prosecutorial duties and entitled to absolute immunity | Held: No absolute immunity for ordering a warrantless arrest; conduct is investigative/administrative, not advocacy |
| Whether a prosecutor is absolutely immune for initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution (malicious prosecution) | Loupe: malicious prosecution claim alleges improper, retaliatory initiation of charges | O’Bannon: initiating prosecution is an advocacy function entitled to absolute immunity | Held: Absolute immunity applies to initiating and pursuing prosecution; malicious-prosecution claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (historical recognition of absolute immunity for legislators)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for advocacy functions in judicial process)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (prosecutorial legal advice and investigative acts are not absolutely immune)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (functional approach: immunity depends on nature of function performed)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (scope of prosecutorial immunity and focus on protecting office functions)
- Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895 (5th Cir.) (prosecutors immune when securing arrest warrants and initiating prosecutions)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.) (ordering immediate warrantless arrests not protected by absolute immunity)