## Facts

- A nonprofit service organization planned a fundraising “Monte Carlo Night” featuring simulated gambling at a restaurant, obtained a local permit, and spent significant time and money preparing.
- On the afternoon of the event, the Hampden District Attorney concluded the event violated Massachusetts gambling laws.
- The district attorney called the Chicopee chief of police (already at the venue) and stated the event was illegal, threatening a raid, confiscation of equipment and proceeds, and arrests.
- The organization cancelled the event, alleging loss of anticipated fundraising revenue, interference with contracts, reputational harm, and reduced future fundraising capacity.
- The organization sued the district attorney, Hampden County, and the Commonwealth asserting § 1983 claims (due process, equal protection, and assembly), a claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, state-law tort claims (negligent interference and defamation), and respondeat superior against the county and Commonwealth.

## Issues

1. Whether a Massachusetts district attorney has absolute immunity from civil liability under § 1983, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, and common-law tort theories for conduct taken as part of prosecutorial (quasi-judicial) functions, including threatening enforcement actions to stop allegedly illegal gambling.
2. Whether Hampden County or the Commonwealth may be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for the district attorney’s conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the district attorney was absolutely immune because the challenged conduct fell within prosecutorial/quasi-judicial functions tied to enforcing criminal gambling laws.
- The court held Hampden County and the Commonwealth were not liable under respondeat superior because they did not direct or control the district attorney’s prosecutorial decisions and, in any event, derivative liability could not bypass the prosecutor’s absolute immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute prosecutorial immunity bars civil suits against a district attorney for acts “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” including decisions whether and how to enforce criminal laws.
- Immunity is determined by the function performed, not by the plaintiff’s chosen cause of action; the same absolute immunity applies to § 1983 claims, Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims, and common-law tort claims when based on prosecutorial acts.
- Governmental entities are not vicariously liable for a district attorney’s prosecutorial conduct where they lack the requisite direction or control, and respondeat superior cannot be used to impose liability when the alleged primary actor is absolutely immune.

## Conclusion

The court held that a district attorney’s threats to enforce gambling laws by raid, seizure, and arrests were prosecutorial acts protected by absolute immunity, and it rejected vicarious liability claims against the county and Commonwealth because they lacked control over the prosecutor and could not be derivatively liable where the prosecutor is immune.


Chicopee Lions Club v. Dist. Att’y for Hampden Dist., 396 Mass. 244, 485 N.E.2d 673 (1985)