Lampton v. Diaz
639 F.3d 223
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lampton, a federal prosecutor, prosecuted Oliver Diaz and Jennifer Diaz for fraud, bribery, and tax evasion between 2003–2006.
- Oliver Diaz was acquitted; Jennifer Diaz pleaded guilty to tax evasion.
- Lampton filed a complaint with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance alleging Diaz's misconduct, including federal tax records obtained during the criminal investigation.
- The Commission dismissed the complaint in December 2008.
- The Diazes sued Lampton in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging release of private tax records violated federal privacy provisions; Lampton moved to dismiss invoking absolute prosecutorial immunity, which the district court denied.
- This appeal concerns whether Lampton’s post-trial transfer of tax records to the Commission is protected by prosecutorial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute prosecutorial immunity covers post-trial transfer to a state ethics body | Diazes contend immunity extends to post-trial actions | Lampton argues immunity applies to all acts within prosecutorial function | No; immunity does not extend to post-trial transfers to the Commission. |
| Whether policy justifications support extending immunity to this context | Immunity is necessary to protect prosecutorial discretion and avoid liability | There are other safeguards and the harm occurs outside traditional trial context | Policy does not support extending immunity here. |
| Whether Demery-like authorities justify immunity for post-trial conduct before non-judicial tribunals | Post-trial actions before a tribunal should be immunized under some authorities | Demery does not apply; Lampton had no duty to disclose; actions unrelated to prosecution | Not immunized; post-trial conduct unrelated to the criminal proceedings falls outside common-law immunity. |
| Whether Waiver or procedural issues affect consideration of immunity | Argument adequately raised; not waived | Argument briefly raised but not briefed in district court | Argument considered on the merits; not waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute immunity grounded in common law for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal process)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1997) (tests whether current immunity policy supports extension beyond common-law scope)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (immunity limits for prosecutors in certain protective contexts; policy-based analysis)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1991) (limits of prosecutorial immunity; role of advocacy vs. investigative functions)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2009) (administrative duties; immunity not broad enough to cover all non-trial actions)
- Economou v. Butz, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (immunity for initiating or continuing agency proceedings connected to adjudication)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (complaining witnesses and immunity limitations; historical context)
- Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe Cnty., 591 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2009) ( Fifth Circuit on limitations of prosecutorial immunity)