Tate v. Grose, Civ. A. No. 73-1080.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 73-1080. |
| Citation | 412 F. Supp. 487 |
| Parties | Otis Joe TATE v. Albert GROSE, No. 908, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Alan Sacks, Indigent Prisoner Litigation Program, University of Pa., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Judith Dean, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants Specter, Stevens, Randell & D'Ambriso.
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-85 in 1973. The pro se complaint alleges that defendants, the police department of Philadelphia, one police officer, one magistrate of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia district attorney's office, and four members of that office conspired to deprive and did deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights by obtaining and issuing an arrest warrant for plaintiff without probable cause, by maliciously prosecuting a murder indictment against plaintiff, and by soliciting and knowingly using perjured testimony against plaintiff. Plaintiff was acquitted of the murder charge after confinement in prison for seven months.
We granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis as to the police officer and the members of the district attorney's office but denied leave as to the police department, the magistrate, and the district attorney's office. Plaintiff appealed from our denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis as to the magistrate. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of timely prosecution.
The four members of the district attorney's office have moved to dismiss the action1 asserting that they are immune from suits for damages under the Civil Rights Act for actions undertaken in their official capacity. We shall grant the motion.
In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 44 U.S.L.W. 4250 (1976), the Supreme Court held that "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983." Id., 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 995, 47 L.Ed.2d at 143, 44 U.S.L.W. at 4257. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the prosecutor had knowingly used perjured testimony in securing his conviction. The Court acknowledged that a rule of absolute prosecutorial immunity would "leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Id., 424 U.S. at 427, 96 S.Ct. at 993, 47 L.Ed.2d at 141, 44 U.S.L.W. at 4256. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that "the broader public interest" was better served by immunity which would promote "the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. City of Philadelphia
...no cause of action against prosecutor even if prosecutor deliberately elicited perjured testimony to obtain conviction); Tate v. Grose, 412 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.Pa.1976) (suit dismissed basis of absolute immunity where state prosecutors allegedly used perjured testimony). Accordingly, Roe has a......
-
Rose v. Bartle
...Maglione v. Briggs, 748 F.2d 116, 118 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam). 8 The district court quoted the following passage from Tate v. Grose, 412 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.Pa.1976), in support of its [T]here is no reason to depart from a rule of absolute prosecutorial immunity merely because the complaint......
-
Groff v. Eckman
...not a judge, his actions and those of defendant Crosswell are immune from suit under Section 1983 and will be dismissed. Tate v. Grose, 412 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.Pa.1976). Defendants Ober and Tompkins move to dismiss the claims lodged against them personally and in their official capacities for ......
-
Rose v. Bartle
...proceedings and that absolute immunity is required in such a situation, consistent with the holding in Imbler. Smyth cites Tate v. Grose, 412 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.Pa.1976), as support for his position. In Tate, then Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, held as without merit a plaintiff's claim that......