2008-10-01_Jack_Thomas_v_COH_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_and_Remanding_State_Law_Claims

Home

Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 52 Filed 10/01/2008 Page 10 of 17 The court therefore finds that Plaintiff failed to provide Defendants adequate notice of these new allegations, and the court will not consider these arguments for the first time in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. B. Absolute Immunity Defendants argue that Malate and Kimura are absolutely immune from suit for their alleged violations of Plaintiff's rights. Based on the following, the court agrees. 1. Framework "Courts have recognized two types of immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: qualified immunity and absolute immunity." Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 481 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268 (1993)). Absolute immunity protects a prosecutor from civil liability "whether or not he or she violated the civil plaintiff's constitutional rights." Broatn v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2003). "A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983 for conduct that is `intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,' Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976), and `occur[s] in the course of his role as an advocate for the State."' Goldstein, 481 F.3d at 1173 (quoting Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273) (some alteration omitted). 10