ERIK REDEEMER, APPELLANT,
v.
GREGG ROSSMAN, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of a civil tort complaint against a prosecutor on prosecutorial immunity grounds. The court held that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity when initiating extradition proceedings against defendants, as such actions are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.
A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from suits claiming constitutional rights violations resulting from the initiation of extradition proceedings. Extradition is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and falls within the proper discharge of prosecutorial duties.
[1] Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits alleging that their initiation of extradition proceedings violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights.
[2] Decisions to extradite and to issue arrest warrants in connection with extradition fall within the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from suits ... claiming that the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated as a result of the initiation of an extradition process”
Establishes the universal legal principle that prosecutors have absolute immunity for extradition initiation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a civil tort complaint against prosecutor Gregg Rossman alleging violations of constitutional rights arising from the initiation o…
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 Prosecutorial Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the order dismissing a civil tort complaint against a prosecutor upon prosecutorial immunity grounds.
Almost every court that has considered the prosecutorial conduct at issue in this case “has determined that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from suits ... claiming that the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated as a result of the initiation of an extradition process.” Uribe v. Cohen, 3:04 CV 1723 CFD, 2006 WL 2349567, at *3 (D.Conn.2006) (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Larsen v. Early, 842 F.Supp. 1310, 1313 (D.Colo.1994) (prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity since “extradition is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” (internal quotation omitted)); Cleary v. Andersen, 423 F.Supp. 745, 748 (D.Neb.1976) (“[I]t is apparent that the proper discharge of the prosecutor’s duties in the criminal justice system requires that he be accorded unhampered discretion in deciding when to seek the extradition of an individual.”); Rivera v. Algarin, 350 Fed.Appx. 703, 708 (3d Cir.2009) (“Ricca’s efforts to initiate extradition proceedings against Rivera are prosecutorial in nature and entitle her to immunity from liability.”); Cross v. Meisel, 720 F.Supp. 486, 489 (E.D.Pa.1989); Arebaugh v. Dalton, 600 F.Supp. 1345, 1351 (E.D.Va.1985); Brooks v. Fitch, 534 F.Supp. 129, 132 (D.N.J.1981) (“[T]he decisions to extradite *259and to issue an arrest warrant fall within the scope of absolute immunity.”). The justification is obvious considering the purpose of extradition. As the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467, 472 (4th Cir.2000), “[ijnsuring that a defendant is present both for trial and for punishment is critical to a prosecutor’s discharge of her duties.... Indeed, if a convicted defendant is not available for punishment, the prosecution itself would be rendered pointless.”
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.