Penate v. Kaczmarek, 928 F.3d 128

In 2011–2013 Penate was prosecuted in Hampden County; samples tested by lab chemist Sonja Farak returned positive results. Farak later admitted drug use and tampering while at the Amherst lab.
The Massachusetts AG’s Office (AGO) investigated Farak; investigators seized Farak’s car in 2013 and recovered Diary Cards and mental-health worksheets that suggested on-the-job drug use/tampering.
AGO prosecutor Anne Kaczmarek was assigned to prosecute Farak; the complaint alleges Kaczmarek and others withheld those worksheets from the DAs, from Penate’s trial counsel, and from the state court, while disclosing them to Farak’s defense and claiming they were privileged.
A consolidated evidentiary hearing was held; the AGO (through Assistant AG Kris Foster) responded to a subpoena and a court order; Ballou (investigator) did not disclose the worksheets at the hearing and the AGO represented that no undisclosed documents existed.
Penate was convicted in December 2013; the withheld documents later surfaced in 2014; Penate’s conviction was set aside in 2017 after a court found particularly egregious withholding by Kaczmarek and Foster.
Penate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Brady violations; the district court denied Kaczmarek’s motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity; Kaczmarek appealed interlocutorily and the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kaczmarek is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for withholding Brady material obtained while prosecuting Farak	Penate: withholding material deprived him of exculpatory evidence and violated his §1983 rights; immunity inapplicable because conduct lacked prosecutorial function tied to Penate’s prosecution	Kaczmarek: she was prosecuting Farak when the conduct occurred, so her acts are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity (Imbler line)	Denied — no absolute prosecutorial immunity: the alleged withholding lacked a "functional tie" to advocacy in Farak’s prosecution (she had disclosed the same material to Farak’s defense)
Whether Kaczmarek is entitled to absolute immunity as a government attorney (Butz-type immunity) for advising on responses to subpoena and court order	Penate: Kaczmarek acted as an evidence custodian/administrator in responding to discovery; any legal advice was ancillary and not the kind of advocacy deserving absolute immunity	Kaczmarek: Butz and related cases protect government attorneys performing functions analogous to prosecutors; her assistance to Foster in handling the subpoena was such a function	Denied — no absolute government-attorney immunity: complaint alleges an administrative/custodial role (not advocacy in a quasi-judicial proceeding), so Butz immunity does not apply

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors absolutely immune for initiating prosecution and presenting state’s case)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (functional approach; absolute immunity depends on whether conduct is functionally tied to judicial process)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (presumption for qualified immunity; absolute immunity requires heavy showing)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (agency attorneys entitled to absolute immunity when performing functions analogous to prosecutors in quasi-judicial proceedings)
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (absolute immunity for supervisors of prosecutors re: supervisory roles in disclosure compliance)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (absolute immunity for certain prosecutorial acts in preparing charging documents)
Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 1995) (prosecutors immune for evaluating evidence and preparing for trial when acting as advocates)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (absolute immunity analysis focuses on the nature of the function performed)
Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (distinguishing administrative functions from advocacy functions for immunity)
Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006) (denying absolute immunity where former prosecutors acted as custodians/administrators rather than advocates)