Summary
A § 1983 malicious prosecution claim against prosecutors was barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity for the decision to file charges, even if made without probable cause. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's claims because the complaint failed to plead specific factual allegations of evidence fabrication or its use by the prosecutors and investigators, as required under *Iqbal* and *Twombly*, and the § 1985 conspiracy claim failed for lack of class-based discriminatory animus. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the plaintiff did not file a proper motion or proposed amended complaint, and had already amended once without curing deficiencies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing the § 1983 malicious prosecution claim against prosecutors based on absolute immunity.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim for evidence fabrication against prosecutors and investigators.
- Whether the § 1985 conspiracy claim was properly dismissed for lack of class-based discrimination.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Warnick leave to amend his complaint.
Holdings
- Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for their decisions to prosecute, including filing charges, regardless of the existence of probable cause.
- Warnick failed to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for evidence fabrication because he did not specify what false evidence was fabricated or how it was used against him.
- The § 1985(3) claim fails because Warnick did not allege any racial or class-based discriminatory animus, as required by Griffin v. Breckenridge.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because Warnick failed to file a proper motion, did not provide a proposed amended complaint, and had already amended once without curing deficiencies.
Key quotations
“Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for anything they do in their roles as advocates, including their decisions to prosecute.” (at 8)
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not count as well-pleaded facts.” (at 7)
“If an officer (or investigating prosecutor) fabricates evidence and puts that fabricated evidence in a drawer, making no further use of it, then the officer has not violated due process.” (at 12)
“Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for the malicious prosecution of someone whom they lacked probable cause to indict.” (at 9)
Factual background
Silvan Warnick served as a constable in Salt Lake County. His deputy, Daniel Herboldsheimer, filed an incident report that Warnick believed did not comply with county policy. Herboldsheimer then contacted the county attorney's office and falsely claimed that Warnick had instructed him to falsify the report. Prosecutors and investigators investigated the complaint and twice brought charges for witness and evidence tampering against Warnick. Both sets of charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause. Warnick lost his position as constable and suffered reputational harm.
Procedural history
Warnick sued defendants in federal district court for malicious prosecution under § 1983, conspiracy, and state law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss. Warnick filed an amended complaint without leave of court, which the court allowed to stand. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and the district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Warnick appealed.