U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1969

Benjamin F. Marlowe v. J. Frank Coakley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided January 28, 1969 · Browning, Ely, Der Heydt

404 F.2d 70 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Benjamin F. Marlowe (argued), Oakland, Cal., for appellant., Richard J. Heafey (argued), of Hagar, Crosby & Rosson, Oakland, Cal., for ap-pellees.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Paul Kern Imbler v. Richard Pachtman (9th Cir. 1974)
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. (Minn. 1981)
Imbler v. Pachtman (Supreme Court of the United States 1976)
Powell v. Seay (Okla. 1976)
Ames v. Vavreck (D. Minn. 1973)
L. Patrick Gray, III v. Griffin Bell (D.C. Cir. 1983)
Gray v. Bell (District Court, District of Columbia 1982)
Hall v. Flathead County Attorney (District Court, D. Montana 1979)
Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Miller (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1978)
Zimmerman v. Spears (District Court, W.D. Texas 1977)
Roy W. Weathers v. Paul Ebert (4th Cir. 1974)
Haaf v. Grams (D. Minn. 1973)
Haaf v. Grams (D. Minn. 1973)
Maniaci v. Warren (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1970)
King v. Rouse (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the District Court’s dismissal of appellant’s civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the district attorney of Alameda County, California, and his assistants. Appellant complained that appellees knowingly and wilfully, or with gross negligence, presented perjured testimony to the grand jury investigating appellant’s activities and that appellees wilfully and deliberately suppressed from the grand jury exculpating evidence within their knowledge. The grand jury indicted appellant for the crime of grand theft, but the subsequent state court trial resulted in acquittal. The District Court’s jurisdiction was conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and ours rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The sole issue is whether appellees are immune from civil liability for the acts of which appellant complained.

A prosecuting attorney is immune from civil suit for acts committed in the performance of duties constituting an integral part of the judicial process. Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1965). In Robichaud we discussed the policy behind such immunity as well as its limitations. We stated at 536:

“The key to the immunity previously held to be protective to the prosecuting attorney is that the acts, alleged to have been wrongful, were committed by the officer in the performance of an integral part of the judicial process.”

A California district attorney’s presentation of evidence to a grand jury is clearly within the scope of his duty to advise and present information to the grand jury as authorized by California *71 law. See Cal.Pen.Code, § 925 (West 1956); Cal.Gov.Code, § 26501 (West 1955). The function is “an integral part of the judicial process.”

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.