Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:02-CV-1097-K
September 15, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Bill Hill's motion to dismiss. Having thoroughly reviewed the motion and all related filings, the Court finds it has merit and should be GRANTED.
Factual Background
Plaintiff, Victor Alvarado DeLeon, sued Defendants Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, the City of Dallas, and several Dallas police officers, alleging civil rights violations and seeking damages and declaratory relief. DeLeon alleges the defendants arrested him illegally. He also alleges that after the illegal arrest, defendants held and prosecuted him on drug related charges that turned out to be false. DeLeon asserts claims against Hill for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hill filed a motion to dismiss, claiming he is entitled to absolute prosecute rial immunity. The Court agrees.
Motion to Dismiss
When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court may grant the motion only if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff's would not be entitled to recover under any set of facts that they could prove in support of their claim." Growe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In Rule 12(b)(6) motions, plaintiff's admit the facts alleged in the complaint, but challenge plaintiff's right to relief based upon those facts. Id. The Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the pleadings, but need not resolve unclear questions of law in favor of the plaintiff. Kansa Reinsurance Co. V. Congressional Mart. Corp., 20 F.3d 1362, 1366 (5th Cir. 1994). A plaintiff who invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must plead specific facts which, if proved, would overcome the individual defendant's entitlement to immunity; conclusory allegations will not survive a motion to dismiss. Elliot v. Perez, 751 F.2d 1472, 1479 (5th Cir. 1985).Absolute Immunity
In order to promote the proper administration of justice, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976). plaintiff's may overcome a defendant's prosecutorial immunity by alleging actions that fall outside "initiating the prosecution and in carrying the case through the judicial process." Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994). Prosecutorial immunity, however, applies "even if the prosecutor is accused of knowingly using perjured testimony," withholding exculpatory evidence, and failing to make full disclosures of facts. See id.; McCoy v. Gordon, 709 F.2d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1983). State prosecutors are absolutely immune for their actions intimately associated with the judicial process, including their actions in seeking the issuance of an arrest warrant. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127 (1997); see also Sanchez v. Swyden, 131 F.3d 1144, 1147 (5th Cir. 1988) (state prosecutor absolutely immune for actions geared towards the initiation of prosecution or in preparation for judicial proceedings).
Here, plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts to overcome Hill's prosecutorial immunity. Although DeLeon contends he was harmed as a result of Hill's failure to create and implement policies and procedures, and such actions fall outside his role as a prosecutor, this Court disagrees. DeLeon's allegations against Hill arise from his arrest, detention, and prosecution. All of Hill's actions in relation to DeLeon were taken in his role as a prosecutor. Because Hill is entitled to absolute immunity from DeLeon's claims against him in this suit, Hill's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and all claims against him in this suit are DISMISSED.