Summary
This United States District Court order resolves cross-motions for summary judgment in a prisoner’s civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court examines whether a probation agent is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for relaying allegations of assault made by one client against another, and evaluates a Fourth Amendment claim regarding the validity of an apprehension request. Finding that the agent’s actions were investigatory rather than quasi-judicial, the court denies absolute immunity but concludes she is not liable because there is no evidence she knowingly or recklessly provided false information. Consequently, the court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses her from the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Jennifer Schubart is entitled to absolute immunity for relaying allegations to law‑enforcement agents.
- Whether Gill's Fourth Amendment claim against Schubart succeeds.
Holdings
- The court held that Schubart is not entitled to absolute immunity; she is only entitled to qualified immunity, which does not preclude summary judgment against her.
- The court held that Gill's Fourth Amendment claim fails because there is no evidence Schubart knowingly or recklessly provided false information; summary judgment is proper.
Key quotations
“Activities that “involve decision‑making that is ‘judicial’ in nature” receive absolute immunity.”
“The plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim fails because there is no evidence Schubart knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard provided false information.”
Factual background
Charles B. Gill, Sr., an incarcerated inmate, sued probation officer Jennifer Schubart under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that she relayed false information from a client, Naumann, to the plaintiff's parole agent and law enforcement, leading to his arrest and probation revocation. Schubart contended she was acting within her duties under Wisconsin Administrative Code §DOC 328.27 and claimed absolute or qualified immunity.
Procedural history
The court previously denied Gill's summary judgment against defendant Teigen, granted Teigen's cross‑motion, and dismissed Teigen. The present order addresses Gill's partial summary‑judgment motion against Jennifer Schubart and Schubart's cross‑motion.