Martin Guerrero, Jr. v. James Barlow, Individually and as Criminal District Attorney of Bexar County, Texas, No. 73-3972. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Causalty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Parti

Fifth Circuit

Martin Guerrero, Jr. v. James Barlow, Individually and as Criminal District Attorney of Bexar County, Texas, No. 73-3972. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Causalty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Parti

494 F.2d 1190

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1974

Docket1190

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 494 F.2d 1190 (Martin Guerrero, Jr. v. James Barlow, Individually and as Criminal District Attorney of Bexar County, Texas, No. 73-3972. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Causalty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Parti) 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

Martin Guerrero, Jr. v. James Barlow, Individually and as Criminal District Attorney of Bexar County, Texas, No. 73-3972. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Causalty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Parti, 494 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

494 F.2d 1190

Martin GUERRERO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James BARLOW, Individually and as Criminal District Attorney
of Bexar County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 73-3972. Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Causalty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,
431 F.2d 409, PartI.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 31, 1974.

Martin Guerrero, Jr., pro se.

Norris W. Yates, Jr., Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

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.

1

Guerrero was convicted of murder with malice in Bexar County, Texas, on June 2, 1965, and was sentenced to life imprisonment

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

494 F.2d 1190

Martin GUERRERO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James BARLOW, Individually and as Criminal District Attorney
of Bexar County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 73-3972. Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Causalty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,
431 F.2d 409, PartI.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 31, 1974.

Martin Guerrero, Jr., pro se.

Norris W. Yates, Jr., Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

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.

1

Guerrero was convicted of murder with malice in Bexar County, Texas, on June 2, 1965, and was sentenced to life imprisonment

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 F.2d 1190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-guerrero-jr-v-james-barlow-individually-and-as-criminal-district-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack