Howard v. Taylor ( 1995 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40112
Conference Calendar
__________________
ERIC ANTONIO HOWARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIM TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:94-CV-117
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Eric Antonio Howard appeals the district court's
dismissal of his civil rights action against Tim Taylor, county
attorney for Titus County, Texas, as frivolous. Howard argues
that Taylor failed to perform his duty under article 2.03(a) of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure when he refused to present
before the grand jury evidence of wrongdoing by other officers.
Prosecutors are immune from § 1983 suits for acts that are
within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40112
-2-
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Prosecutorial immunity has
been extended to a prosecutor's actions in initiating,
investigating, and pursuing a criminal prosecution. Cook v.
Houston Post, 616 F.2d 791, 793 (5th Cir. 1980); McGruder v.
Necaise, 733 F.2d 1146, 1148 (5th Cir. 1984). Quasi-judicial
conduct, such as a prosecutor's decision whether to file criminal
charges, is also immune. Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d 278, 281
(5th Cir. 1990); Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare,
925 F.2d 844, 850 (5th Cir. 1992).
The prosecutor's duty to present by information evidence of
neglect is not distinct from or independent of his decision to
file criminal charges. Because that decision falls within his
scope of prosecutorial duties, he is absolutely immune from
liability.
Although neither absolute nor qualified immunity extends to
suits for injunctive or declaratory relief, Chrissy F., 925 F.2d
at 849, Howard is not entitled to such relief because there is no
constitutionally protected right to have any other person
criminally prosecuted. Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227
(4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing Howard's complaint, and its judgment
is AFFIRMED.