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 13 of 27 use of false testimony at trial. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128. In order to prevail on a motion for judgment on the pleadings the movant [must] clearly establish[ ] that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he [or she] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil (Federal Practice) §1368 at 518 (2d ed.1990). "In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court is required to view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. at 518-19. The reasoning which justifies this rule is based primarily on public policy. As the court stated in Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wash.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606, 608 (Wash. 1966): The public policy which requires immunity for the prosecuting attorney, also requires immunity for both the state and county for acts of judicial and quasi judicial officers in performance of the duties which rest upon them; otherwise objectives sought by immunity to the individual officers would be seriously impaired or destroyed. If the prosecutor must weigh the possibilities of precipitating tort litigation involving the county and the state against his action in any criminal case, his 6