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 16 of 27 decision by the consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a suit for damages."Id. at 424-25,-96 S.Ct. at 992-993. The scope of a prosecutor's jurisdiction is determined by law. In considering whether a given prosecution was clearly beyond the scope of that jurisdiction, or whether instead there was at least a colorable claim of authority, see, e.g., id. ("at least a semblance of jurisdiction"), we inquire whether the pertinent statutes may have authorized prosecution for the charged conduct, see, e.g., id. at 361-62;Bernard, 356 F.3d at 504; Schloss v. Bouse, 876 F.2d 287, 291 (2d Cir.1989). Once the court determines that the challenged prosecution was not clearly beyond the prosecutor's jurisdiction, the prosecutor is shielded from liability for damages for commencing and pursuing the prosecution, regardless of any allegations that his actions were undertaken with an improper state of mind or improper motive. See, e.g., Bernard, 356 F.3d at 503; id. at 502 ("a defendant's motivation in performing such advocative functions [as deciding to prosecute] is irrelevant to the applicability of absolute immunity"). For example, a defense of absolute immunity from a claim for damages must be upheld against a §1983 claim that the prosecutor commenced and continued a prosecution that was within his jurisdiction but did so for purposes of retaliation, see, e.g., Barr v. Adams, 810 F.2d 358 at 360-62, or for purely political reasons, see, e.g., Bernard, 356 F.3d at 504 ("the fact that improper motives may influence 9