Quick v. Edwards

2 Citing cases

  1. Talley v. Mumford

    Civil Action 3:24-cv-323-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jun. 20, 2024)

    See Prince v. Wallace, 568 F.2d 1176, 1178-79 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that immunity is applicable “even where the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, deliberately withheld exculpatory information, or failed to make full disclosure of all facts casting doubt upon the state's testimony.”); see also Roberts v. Jack, 2016 WL 4136490, at *2 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 3, 2016) (holding that prosecutor was absolutely immune against plaintiff's slander claim); Quick v. Edwards, 2006 WL 1751737, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2006) (same). Because Plaintiff's allegations against Mumford concern actions taken in his role in prosecuting Plaintiff's criminal charges, Mumford is entitled to prosecutorial immunity, and Plaintiff's claims against him should be dismissed with prejudice.

  2. Smith v. Beach

    CIVIL ACTION NO.4:14-CV-910-Y (N.D. Tex. May. 31, 2016)

    Id.Quick v. Edwards, No.3:05-CV-1151-L, 2006 WL 1751737, at *2 (N. D. Tex. June 26, 2006)(Lindsay, J.) Similarly, in this case, Plaintiff Smith does not allege that Beach's in-court statements violated a constitutional or other federal right. His claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Furthermore, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from monetary damages for their actions to initiate and pursue criminal prosecutions.