Guerrero v. Barlow

Fifth Circuit

Guerrero v. Barlow

494 F.2d 1190, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8373

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1974

DocketNo. 73-3972

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 494 F.2d 1190 (Guerrero v. Barlow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guerrero v. Barlow, 494 F.2d 1190, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8373 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Guerrero appeals from the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his suit for damages brought against a prosecuting attorney under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Guerrero complained that his civil rights were violated when, in a state criminal prosecution, the prosecutor denied him access to supplementary police reports and caused him to be imprisoned before trial, thus handicapping preparations for his defense.¹ The district court held that Guerrero’s claims were barred by the immunity that prosecuting attorneys enjoy under the Civil Rights Act for actions taken within the scope of their authority. We agree. It is well settled that prosecuting attorneys, as “quasi-judicial officers”, are immune from suit under section 1983 for actions taken in performance of their official role. Pierson v. Ray, 1967, 386 U.S. 547, 553-555, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288; Hill v. City of El Paso, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 352, 354. We are not persuaded that the actions complained of here are without this band of immunity that surrounds official acts. Nor do we believe that the court erred by dismissing the cause with prejudice.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Guerrero appeals from the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his suit for damages brought against a prosecuting attorney under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Guerrero complained that his civil rights were violated when, in a state criminal prosecution, the prosecutor denied him access to supplementary police reports and caused him to be imprisoned before trial, thus handicapping preparations for his defense.¹ The district court held that Guerrero’s claims were barred by the immunity that prosecuting attorneys enjoy under the Civil Rights Act for actions taken within the scope of their authority. We agree. It is well settled that prosecuting attorneys, as “quasi-judicial officers”, are immune from suit under section 1983 for actions taken in performance of their official role. Pierson v. Ray, 1967, 386 U.S. 547, 553-555, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288; Hill v. City of El Paso, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 352, 354. We are not persuaded that the actions complained of here are without this band of immunity that surrounds official acts. Nor do we believe that the court erred by dismissing the cause with prejudice.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 F.2d 1190, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerrero-v-barlow-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack