DONALD RAY HUGHES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM CHESSER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A state probation officer is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages when preparing and submitting a presentence report.
Plaintiff sued a state probation officer alleging falsification of a presentence report. The district court dismissed the suit, finding the officer im…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse § 1983 Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
Judge RONEY, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff, Donald Ray Hughes, applies for leave to file an in forma pauperis appeal from the district court’s denial of his § 1983 suit against a state probation officer, William Chesser. Hughes alleges that Chesser falsified certain facts in his presentence report. The district court held that Chesser was immune from suit, quoting from Spauld-ing v. Nielsen, 599 F. 2d 728 (5th Cir.1979) as follows:
The district court’s dismissal of Spauld-ing’s damage claims against the federal probation officers was proper. Judges who act within the.scope of their authority enjoy absolute immunity from damage suits. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). This immunity has been extended to prosecutors for their decision to prosecute and their conduct of the government’s case on the theory that these activities are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process ... ’ Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). We hold that a probation officer is entitled to the same protection when preparing and submitting a presentence report in a criminal case. The report is an integral part of the sentencing process, and in preparing the report the probation officer acts at the direction of the court. See Fed.R. Crim.P. 32. We think it apparent that this narrow function is ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process’ and thus, where, as here, the challenged activities of a federal probation officer are within this function, he or she is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages. Burkes v. Callion, 433 F. 2d 318 (9th Cir.1970); Friedman v. Younger, 282 F.Supp. 710 (C.D.Cal.1968). See also Cruz v. Skelton, 502 F. 2d 1101 (5th Cir.1974). Defendants’ activities were within this protected function, and the complaint seeking damages was properly dismissed.
599 F. 2d at 729 (footnotes omitted).
The Fifth Circuit case decided before October 1,1981 is binding precedent in this circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.1981).
The immunity extended in Spaulding to a federal probation officer would be equally.applicable to a state probation officer. Since the law clearly supports the decision of the district court, this appeal is frivolous. Therefore, the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is
DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Clark Davenport Snell v. Conley Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990)…criminal docket. Id. These functions of the probation officer are integrally related to the judicial function. The cases relied upon in Tripati do not purport to establish a broader rule or suggest a different rule in this case. Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F. 2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (absolute immunity for preparation and submission of presentence report); Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F. 2d 728, 729 & 729 n. 2 (5th Cir.1979) (same); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F. 2d 318, 319 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 9…
-
Woodson R. Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2009)…r the preparation and submission of a presentence report in a criminal case because the “report is an integral part of the sentencing process, and in preparing the report the probation officer acts at the direction of the court.” Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F. 2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir.1984) (state probation officer) (quoting Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F. 2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.1979) (federal probation officer)). “[T]his narrow function is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process[.]” Hughe…
-
Akeem Washington v. Rivera, 939 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2019)…probation officer entitles her to absolute immunity from Washington's § 1983 claim. Quasi-judicial immunity grants protection from suit to officials who are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir. 1979)). [fn 5] We determine whether a government employee deserves quasi-judicial immunity through an analysis of that employee's functions, Case: 17-13811 Date Filed…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Pierson v. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976)
- Stump v. Sparkman et vir, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978)
- Cruz v. Skelton, 502 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1970)
- Spaulding v. Nielsen, 599 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1979)