George Freeman, Individually and on Behalf of the Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery v. Leroy Hittle, I.H. Redersen, Kazuo Watanbe

Ninth Circuit

George Freeman, Individually and on Behalf of the Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery v. Leroy Hittle, I.H. Redersen, Kazuo Watanbe

708 F.2d 442, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1983

Docket82-3383

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 708 F.2d 442 (George Freeman, Individually and on Behalf of the Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery v. Leroy Hittle, I.H. Redersen, Kazuo Watanbe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George Freeman, Individually and on Behalf of the Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery v. Leroy Hittle, I.H. Redersen, Kazuo Watanbe, 708 F.2d 442, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26816 (9th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

George Freeman, individually and on behalf of The Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action. Freeman alleged that the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office deprived him of property without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,1985 and 1986, and interfered with his contractual relationship with his landlord. We affirm.

The district court correctly found that all four defendants were absolutely immune from suit. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

The complaint named as defendants the King County Prosecuting Attorney (Mal-eng), two Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys (Redkey, Evans), and an investigator for the Fraud Division of the Prosecuting Attorney’s office (Colwell). The complaint alleged that Colwell, acting under the authority of the Maleng’s office, told the plaintiff’s landlord that he was not getting as much rent from plaintiff’s lease as he could get from someone else.

Freeman claims that the purpose of the statement was to cause the landlord to terminate The Sanctuary’s lease, thereby depriving it of property without due process, He also contends that the statement wrongfully interfered with the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant.

A state prosecuting attorney acting within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of constitutional rights. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Investigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor’s case also enjoy absolute immunity. Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 485, 488-89 (10th Cir.1977); see also O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.1982).

The challenged actions of Maleng, Redkey, and Evans were within the scope of the prosecutor’s duties in initiating and pursuing the state’s case. They therefore have absolute immunity from damages under § 1983. Maleng’s involvement with Freeman and The Sanctuary was limited to the use of his title in the formal pleadings of the state criminal case pursued against Freeman. Evans, Redkey’s supervisor, did not participate in Redkey’s decision to pursue criminal charges against Freeman. Redkey, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, was responsible for Freeman’s prosecution. Thus, the district court correctly found that Maleng, Redkey, and Evans were entitled to absolute immunity from damages under Freeman’s § 1983 suit for deprivation of property without due process.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

George Freeman, individually and on behalf of The Sanctuary, a Universal Life Church Monastery, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action. Freeman alleged that the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office deprived him of property without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,1985 and 1986, and interfered with his contractual relationship with his landlord. We affirm.

The district court correctly found that all four defendants were absolutely immune from suit. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

The complaint named as defendants the King County Prosecuting Attorney (Mal-eng), two Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys (Redkey, Evans), and an investigator for the Fraud Division of the Prosecuting Attorney’s office (Colwell). The complaint alleged that Colwell, acting under the authority of the Maleng’s office, told the plaintiff’s landlord that he was not getting as much rent from plaintiff’s lease as he could get from someone else.

Freeman claims that the purpose of the statement was to cause the landlord to terminate The Sanctuary’s lease, thereby depriving it of property without due process, He also contends that the statement wrongfully interfered with the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant.

A state prosecuting attorney acting within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of constitutional rights. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Investigative functions carried out pursuant to the preparation of a prosecutor’s case also enjoy absolute immunity. Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 485, 488-89 (10th Cir.1977); see also O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.1982).

The challenged actions of Maleng, Redkey, and Evans were within the scope of the prosecutor’s duties in initiating and pursuing the state’s case. They therefore have absolute immunity from damages under § 1983. Maleng’s involvement with Freeman and The Sanctuary was limited to the use of his title in the formal pleadings of the state criminal case pursued against Freeman. Evans, Redkey’s supervisor, did not participate in Redkey’s decision to pursue criminal charges against Freeman. Redkey, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, was responsible for Freeman’s prosecution. Thus, the district court correctly found that Maleng, Redkey, and Evans were entitled to absolute immunity from damages under Freeman’s § 1983 suit for deprivation of property without due process.

Affirmed.

Kittye Grant Carrie Roberts v. Barry Foye Robert Burton Earl Robataille Carl Vidano Robert Orosco Robert Archer Phil Wigley Brian Gerald Jerry Turkeurst Michael Biggs Steven Overcast Randy Toburen, Robert Barwick v. Barry Foye Robert Burton Earl Robataille Carl Vidano Robert Orosco Robert Archer Phil Wigley Brian Gerald Jerry Turkeurst Michael Biggs Steven Overcast Randy Toburen

981 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

M.K. v. Harter

716 F. Supp. 1333 (E.D. California, 1989)

Earl Edwin Gobel and Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa County, Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, and Frank Gary

867 F.2d 1201 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar

841 F.2d 1558 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)

Diana G. Schlegel and Central Pacific Freight Lines, an Oregon Corporation v. William Bebout and Bob Russell

841 F.2d 937 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)

Keller v. United States

667 F. Supp. 1351 (S.D. California, 1987)

Barbera v. Smith

654 F. Supp. 386 (S.D. New York, 1987)

Olagues v. Russoniello

770 F.2d 791 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)

Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Jose J. Olagues, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Lation Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. Russoniello, Individually and in His Capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern Ca O'malley, William A., Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for Contra Costa County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in His Capacity as Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County

770 F.2d 791 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 F.2d 442, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-freeman-individually-and-on-behalf-of-the-sanctuary-a-universal-ca9-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack