2008-08-13_Jack_Thomas_v_COH_-_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment

Home

Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 42-2 Filed 08/13/2008 Page 12 of 27 Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129, 118 S.Ct. at 509, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (holding that a prosecutor's preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity); Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (absolute immunity for initiating a prosecution); Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1008 (2001); Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 583-84 (9th Cir.1997) (absolute immunity for decision to prosecute and for professional evaluation of a witness "even if that judgment is harsh, unfair or clouded by personal animus"); id. at 584 (stating that "a prosecutor's professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police is entitled to absolute immunity"); Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1215 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding that "to the extent that the securing of information is necessary to a prosecutor's decision to initiate a criminal prosecution, it is encompassed within the protected, quasi-judicial immunity afforded to the decision itself'). A prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability for failure to investigate the accusations against a defendant before filing charges. See O'Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), affg 507 F.Supp. 546, 548-49 (D.Nev.1981) (holding that a prosecutor is immune from liability for failure to investigate adequately the accusations against a defendant before charging him or her). A prosecutor is also absolutely immune from liability for the knowing 5