## Facts

- Paul Kern Imbler was convicted in California state court of murder arising from a 1961 Los Angeles robbery.
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on eyewitness identifications and related testimony.
- After the conviction, the prosecutor disclosed information that undermined a key prosecution witness and supported Imbler’s alibi.
- In federal habeas proceedings, a federal court found the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony and suppressed material evidence favorable to Imbler, and ordered Imbler released.
- After release, Imbler sued the prosecutor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages, alleging unconstitutional prosecution that caused loss of liberty.
- The federal district court dismissed on prosecutorial immunity grounds, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a state prosecutor is absolutely immune from damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conduct undertaken in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and presenting the State’s case.
2. Whether § 1983 should be read to preserve common-law immunities for prosecutors performing quasi-judicial functions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.
- A state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for acts within the scope of duties in initiating and pursuing a prosecution and presenting the State’s case.
- The Court grounded this result in historical common-law immunity for malicious prosecution and policy concerns about protecting independent prosecutorial decision-making.
- The Court expressly did not decide whether absolute immunity extends to prosecutorial administrative or investigative conduct not closely tied to the judicial phase.

## Legal Principles

- § 1983 is construed in harmony with established common-law immunities unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.
- Absolute prosecutorial immunity applies to advocative functions “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” including initiating charges and presenting evidence in court.
- The immunity is functional: it protects the role (advocate in the judicial process), not the official status alone.
- Policy justifications include avoiding deterrence of vigorous prosecution and preventing civil liability from distorting prosecutorial and post-conviction decision-making.
- Alternative checks on prosecutorial misconduct include appellate and habeas relief, judicial remedies affecting convictions, professional discipline, and potential criminal liability.

## Conclusion

The Court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for conduct as advocates in initiating and conducting prosecutions, even when constitutional violations are alleged, while leaving open whether different rules apply to investigative or administrative actions.


Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)