Foreman v. Wadsworth

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prosecutor and police officers’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants played various roles in bringing false criminal charges against plaintiff. Instant claim arose out of incident in which plaintiff was arrested for obstructing police officer when police came to plaintiff’s restaurant after receiving call from man living above plaintiff’s restaurant. Dist. Ct. found that police officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and under Imbler, 424 U.S. 409, Dist. Ct. properly found that defendant-prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity in his prosecutorial role that included decision to bring charges against plaintiff, and that 11^th Amendment barred plaintiff’s lawsuit against prosecutor in his official capacity. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in censoring plaintiff’s counsel for bringing instant action against prosecutor, where: (1) plaintiff failed to show that action against prosecutor was warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous argument for reversing existing law; and (2) counsel had indicated only that he had planned to challenge Imbler on appeal and had failed to provide substantive argument for doing so. Fact that counsel had attached to his objection to Magistrate’s censure recommendation counsel’s written brief from unsuccessful prior lawsuit that had raised similar issue did not require different result since counsel’s submission came too late.