Suzanne H. Wooten v. John Roach, Sr., Christopher Milner, Greg Abbott, and Harry Eugene White

Summary

In this § 1983 civil rights action, the Fifth Circuit held that absolute prosecutorial immunity shields a district attorney and state attorney general officials from claims arising from a politically motivated investigation and prosecution, but does not shield a prosecutor who performed investigative functions normally delegated to law enforcement. The court also ruled that a district court lacks jurisdiction to accept an amended complaint after a notice of appeal divests it of control over aspects involved in the appeal, and that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over qualified immunity and certain official immunity claims when the district court did not rule on those issues. The case clarifies the functional analysis for prosecutorial immunity, distinguishing between investigative acts (only qualified immunity) and advocacy acts (absolute immunity), and addresses jurisdictional limits on interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine.

Holdings

1. The district court lacked jurisdiction to accept the second amended complaint because the notices of appeal divested it of jurisdiction, so the first amended complaint remains operative and the appeal is not moot.
2. We lack jurisdiction to review qualified immunity and Roach and Milner's official immunity because the district court did not rule on those issues, and there is no appealable collateral order. We have jurisdiction to review prosecutorial immunity and White and Abbott's official immunity under the collateral order doctrine.
3. Roach, White, and Abbott are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; Milner is not. For Roach, the allegations show he performed administrative or supervisory functions connected to the judicial process, not investigative functions. For White, the allegations do not show he engaged in non-prosecutorial activity; his actions (presenting to grand jury, plea bargaining, opposing motion to quash) are protected. For Abbott, the allegations are insufficient. For Milner, the allegations show he performed investigative functions normally performed by law enforcement, so he is not entitled to absolute immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court's acceptance of the second amended complaint after notices of appeal were filed renders the appeal moot.
2. Whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of qualified immunity and official immunity for Roach and Milner.
3. Whether Defendants are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded