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 26 of 27 peremptory challenges in racially discriminatory manner); Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d 196 (5th Cir.1995)(prosecutory absolutely immune from claim of witness intimidation and suppression of evidence, even if prosecutor knew of and directed witness intimidation and suppression of evidence); Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir.1994)(prosecutor. immune from suit alleging knowing use of perjured testimony, malicious prosecution, and conspiring with the judge to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding). Lastly, Plaintiff has neither alleged in the Complaint nor presented sufficient evidence for a claim for violation of his First Amendment right. To state a claim for retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the speech or act was constitutionally protected; (2) the defendant's retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected speech; and (3) a causal connection existed between the retaliatory conduct and the adverse effect on speech. U.S.C.A. Const. amend. I, Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (1 lth Cir.2005). III. CONCLUSION This Court should grant the County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the County has no liability for actions of its employees who are public prosecutors and are cloaked with absolute immunity 19