WILSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
2:21-cv-02057
| E.D. Pa. | Aug 11, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Theophalis Wilson spent over 28 years imprisoned for three murders he asserts he did not commit; his convictions were vacated and charges dismissed after the Office of the Philadelphia District Attorney (OPDA) filed to vacate in January 2020.
- Key factual allegation: the only evidence tying Wilson to the murders was a jailhouse informant, James White, whose identification Wilson alleges was fabricated and coerced by prosecutors and police.
- Wilson sued the City of Philadelphia, multiple police officers, former ADA David Desiderio, and former District Attorney Lynne Abraham, asserting federal civil-rights claims (malicious prosecution, fabrication/coercion of evidence, Brady/Giglio violations, supervisory liability) and state tort claims (malicious prosecution, IIED).
- Desiderio and Abraham moved to dismiss principally on the ground of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
- The Court held that Desiderio’s alleged fabrication/coercion of White’s statement was prosecutorial (occurring after White was charged and during plea negotiations) and therefore absolutely immune; Abraham likewise was immune from supervisory liability.
- The Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Desiderio and Abraham (including state-law torts) and denied leave to amend as futile; other claims against the City and police defendants remain pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Desiderio is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for allegedly fabricating/coercing White’s statement | The fabrication/coercion was investigatory and occurred before Wilson’s arrest/prosecution for him, so not protected by absolute immunity | The conduct occurred after White was charged and during plea negotiations—acts intimately tied to advocacy and thus absolutely immune | The Court held Desiderio’s conduct was prosecutorial and dismissed the federal claims against him with prejudice (absolute immunity) |
| Whether former DA Abraham can be held liable under a supervisory-liability theory | Abraham failed to train/supervise prosecutors re: informant handling and thus is liable | Supervisory immunity applies when the underlying prosecutor’s acts are prosecutorial and absolutely immune | The Court extended absolute immunity to Abraham and dismissed the supervisory claim with prejudice |
| Whether state-law tort claims (malicious prosecution, IIED) against Desiderio and Abraham survive | State torts should proceed because conduct was wrongful and caused harm | Pennsylvania accords absolute privilege/immunity to DAs for acts within official duties | The Court held Pennsylvania absolute immunity bars the state tort claims and dismissed them with prejudice |
| Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend | Plaintiff implicitly sought to preserve claims or amend to avoid dismissal | Defendants argue immunity is dispositive and amendment would be futile | Leave to amend denied; dismissal with prejudice because amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (establishes absolute prosecutorial immunity for functions intimately associated with advocacy)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (extends absolute immunity to supervisory prosecutors when underlying acts are prosecutorial)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1994) (distinguishes obtaining coerced testimony—a witness’s rights—from using it; third parties generally cannot assert witness’s rights)
- Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006) (clarifies prosecutorial v. investigatory functions for immunity analysis)
- Fogle v. Sokol, 957 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2020) (articulates two-step framework: identify the challenged conduct then determine its functional character)
- Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454 (3d Cir. 1992) (evidence obtained at or after filing charges is likely connected to prosecution and is protected)
- Davis v. Grusemeyer, 996 F.2d 617 (3d Cir. 1993) (plea bargaining decisions are protected by absolute immunity)
- Durham v. McElynn, 565 Pa. 163, 772 A.2d 68 (Pa. 2001) (Pennsylvania recognizes absolute privilege for high public officials acting within official duties)