1983 action and prosecutorial misconduct

[catdsnny]

Excerpt from Henzel v. Gerstein below, which quotes, and seems to substantially extend, Imbler. Since when is "use of perjured testimony" within the scope of legitimate duties of a prosecutor? How can anyone prevail on an action against a bad DA with this kind of case out there?

======================
Henzel alleges that the prosecutors Gerstein, Terry, Shevin, Mendelow, Blumenfeld, and Durant were guilty of § 1983 violations in their conduct of the prosecution and various appeals.3 The alleged unlawful acts include: filing an information without investigation, filing charges without jurisdiction, filing a baseless detainer, offering perjured testimony, suppressing exculpatory evidence, refusing to investigate Henzel's complaints about the prison system, threatening Henzel with further criminal prosecutions, and attempting to persuade Henzel not to sue state officials in return for parole. The district court held that the actions of these defendants were within the scope of their prosecutorial duties and that the defendants were therefore immune from § 1983 damage liability.

5
Prosecutors are immune from liability in suits under § 1983 for acts that are an integral part of the judicial process. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1975). This Court, in interpreting Imbler, has agreed that prosecutorial immunity extends to a prosecutor's actions in "initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the state's case . . . . (E)ven where the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, deliberately withheld exculpatory information, or failed to make full disclosure of all facts." Prince v. Wallace, 568 F.2d 1176, 1178-79 (5th Cir. 1978). See also Sykes v. California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974) (immunity extends to filing complaints, instituting arrest or search proceedings, and drawing indictments or informations). The prosecutorial actions that form the basis of Henzel's claims unquestionably fall within the band of prosecutorial immunity. The actions complained of were a necessary and integral part of a prosecutor's role in the judicial system.4

[catdsnny]

Here's the Nifong case...it alleges alot of the same things against Nifong that Imbler says are covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity...what gives?

Causes of action start on page 103...mostly 4th amendment stuff against Nifong, based upon 1983 claims, which is exactly what Imbler said are not allowed...

[url]http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2007/10/5/20071005_laxlawsuit.pdf[/url]