prosecutor immune from damages for filing charges in county court, which had no jurisdiction over juvenile defendant
How later courts described this case
- prosecutor immune from damages for filing charges in county court, which had no jurisdiction over juvenile defendant
- immunity is denied for acts which “a reasonable prosecutor would recognize as being ‘clearly outside his jurisdiction’ to represent the state before the court.”
- "[R]eason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the office."
- “[Rjeason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the office.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HASTIE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I agree that Picking v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 3d Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 240 , should be overruled. But I do not share the view of the majority that the doctrine of “judicial immunity” protects whatever acts of a public prosecutor are “done in his official capacity” or are not “clearly outside his jurisdiction”.
However, I am satisfied that the present complaint, charging a prosecutor with erroneously prosecuting the plaintiff as an adult when he should have known that the plaintiff was under the age of 18, does not state such a deprivation of a federally secured right as is comprehended by the original Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.Code § 1983, formerly R.S. § 1979, upon which this claim is predicated.
Thus, I agree that the complaint here fails to state a cause of action, but for a reason different from that upon which the majority place principal reliance.