964 F.3d 395
5th Cir.2020Background
- Suzanne Wooten, a former Texas state judge, was investigated and prosecuted after defeating an incumbent; the Collin County DA’s Office (CCDAO), led by DA John Roach and investigator Christopher Milner, ran the probe.
- Milner led an extended investigation using multiple grand juries and subpoenas; CCDAO initially conducted the investigation without law-enforcement involvement, and Milner allegedly admitted he lacked probable cause for indictment for an extended period.
- Assistant Attorney General Harry White joined at CCDAO’s request as a Special Assistant/"deputized" prosecutor and later was appointed attorney pro tem; Governor Greg Abbott (as Texas AG) was sued for supervisory liability over White.
- Wooten was indicted, convicted, and later had her conviction vacated after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found insufficient evidence; she then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliatory investigation and prosecution and raised claims against Roach, Milner, White, Abbott, and Collin County.
- The district court denied most defendants’ motions to dismiss on prosecutorial immunity and denied White and Abbott official-immunity defenses under Texas law, but allowed Wooten leave to amend; defendants appealed the immunity rulings and the district court improperly accepted a second amended complaint after notice of appeal.
- The Fifth Circuit considered (1) interlocutory jurisdictional limits caused by the notice of appeal and post-appeal amendment, (2) whether it had appellate jurisdiction over asserted immunity defenses, and (3) whether defendants were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court acceptance of Wooten’s second amended complaint after notices of appeal mooted the appeal | Wooten: amended complaint supersedes prior one and moots appeal | Defendants: notices of appeal divested district court of jurisdiction; amended complaint improper | District court lacked jurisdiction to accept the amendment; appeal not moot |
| Whether this court may now decide defendants’ qualified-immunity claims | Wooten: district court did not rule, so no appealable order; appellate jurisdiction lacking | Defs: district court’s failure/refusal to rule or pendent jurisdiction allows appeal | No jurisdiction to consider qualified immunity here (order did not conclusively decide it) |
| Whether Roach and Milner are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity | Wooten: both acted investigatively (used grand juries, substituted for police) and thus lack absolute immunity | Roach/Milner: acted as prosecutors in grand-jury/prosecutorial roles | Milner: not entitled to absolute immunity (investigatory role). Roach: entitled to absolute immunity for supervisory/prosecutorial functions |
| Whether White and Abbott are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity (and whether official immunity issues are reviewable) | Wooten: White engaged in investigatory activity before being attorney pro tem; Abbott liable as supervisor | White/Abbott: White’s plea negotiations, grand-jury presentation, and adversarial actions were prosecutorial; Abbott’s supervisory acts are immunized | White and Abbott are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; the court need not reach Texas official-immunity issue for them |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocative functions in initiating/presenting prosecutions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutors not absolutely immune for investigative functions performed before probable cause)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (supervisory/prosecutorial decisions connected to trials can be covered by absolute immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of absolute immunity is appealable collateral order)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (notice of appeal divests district court of control over aspects of the case involved in the appeal)
- Dayton Indep. Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co., 906 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1990) (district court may not accept amended complaint after interlocutory appeal when it alters issues on appeal)
- Buckley-related Fifth Circuit precedents: Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2003) (functional test limits absolute immunity) and Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe County, 591 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2009) (prosecutor’s on-scene evidence-gathering is investigative)
- Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2012) (procedures for deferring qualified-immunity rulings and when refusal to rule is appealable)
- Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1986) (discussing appealability of district-court refusal to rule on qualified immunity)