# Russell v. Mariani

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 31, 1990 · 894 F.2d 1337

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/535821

## Case

- **Full name:** Victor J. Russell v. Samuel Mariani, Parole Officer John Doe, Unit Supervisor Raymond E. Capots, Chairman, Adult Parole Authority Richard P. Seiter, Director, Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Richard Celeste, Governor, of Ohio
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 31, 1990
- **Citations:** 894 F.2d 1337; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1258; 1990 WL 6884
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/535821

## Opinion text

894 F.2d 1337
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Victor J. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel MARIANI, Parole Officer; John Doe, Unit Supervisor;
Raymond E. Capots, Chairman, Adult Parole Authority;
Richard P. Seiter, Director, Department of Rehabilitation
and Corrections; Richard Celeste, Governor, of Ohio,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-3424.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 31, 1990.
Before MILBURN and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
1
This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
2
Victor J. Russell appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Russell alleged that the defendant parole officer gave misleading testimony during a pretrial hearing with the result that Russell was deprived of his right to a speedy trial on the underlying criminal charge. Upon consideration, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed.
3
Clearly, witnesses in judicial proceedings enjoy absolute immunity from suit for damages under section 1983 for claims arising from their testimony. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983); Alioto v. City of Shively, 835 F.2d 1173, 1174 (6th Cir.1987). Plaintiff's attempts to distinguish this complaint are patently frivolous. Defendant was properly accorded absolute immunity from suit based upon the acts alleged.
4
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/535821. Public record. Not legal advice.