Dist. Ct. did not err in either dismissing or granting judgment in defendants’ favor in plaintiff’s section 1983 action against defendants-State and County officials, as well as local prosecutors and investigators, alleging malicious prosecution and federal conspiracy claims, when defendants initiated criminal action against plaintiff-lawyer in which plaintiff was accused of aiding and abetting one of her clients to defraud cemetery trust funds out of $22 million. Plaintiff’s claims against State officials in their official capacities were barred by 11th Amendment, and plaintiff otherwise failed to identify County custom or practice that had caused plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, plaintiff’s claims against defendant prosecutors were barred by prosecutorial immunity, where, as here, most of plaintiff’s allegations encompassed prosecutorial acts or omissions. Plaintiff’s allegations that said prosecutors made false and inflammatory statements in press releases that had announced plaintiff’s arrest were potentially actionable, although plaintiff had failed to identify any particular false statements in her complaint. Also, while State and County officials did not enjoy immunity from plaintiff’s malicious prosecution/conspiracy actions based on said officials’ individual capacities, plaintiff failed to identify any constitutional basis for her malicious prosecution claim and otherwise failed to allege that State or County officials played any role in institution of criminal charges against plaintiff or had supplied prosecutors with false evidence used to indict plaintiff. Too, plaintiff’s claim that defendants had inflicted reputation harm was insufficient to establish viable section 1983 action, when plaintiff failed to fit it within any constitutional doctrine. (Partial dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Section 1983 Action