From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maglione v. Briggs

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 16, 1984
748 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1984)

Summary

holding that plaintiff's allegation that the defendant-prosecutor was "in charge of the investigation" against him was conclusory, and therefore insufficient to escape the prosecutor's absolute immunity defense, because plaintiff failed to include any facts or circumstances to support this claim

Summary of this case from Sims v. Monaghan

Opinion

Nos. 334, 401, Dockets 84-7521, 84-7567.

Submitted October 19, 1984.

Decided November 16, 1984.

John W. Brandt, Syracuse, N.Y., for appellant-cross-appellee.

Donohue, Donohue Sabo, P.C., Albany, N.Y., for appellee-cross-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Before OAKES and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and CLARIE, District Judge.

The Honorable T. Emmet Clarie, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.


David Maglione appeals from a grant of summary judgment to defendant Ronald Briggs. Briggs cross-appeals from Judge Miner's denial of his motion for attorney's fees.

In 1981, Maglione was a student at the Northwood School, a private school in Lake Placid, New York. On May 29, students from that school were involved in an altercation with some local youths. Following the incident a felony complaint was brought against Maglione charging that he had stabbed one of the Lake Placid youths with a pocket knife during the altercation.

Briggs, an Assistant District Attorney for Essex County, undertook plea bargaining negotiations with Maglione's counsel. Briggs offered to permit Maglione to plead guilty to a misdemeanor but Maglione declined the offer. Thereafter the Essex County District Attorney's Office presented the case to a grand jury, which returned a no bill.

On April 14, 1983, Maglione filed his complaint in the instant action. The five-paragraph complaint alleged that Briggs "was in charge of the investigation and involved in the Grand Jury presentation" of Maglione's case, and that Briggs had acted in bad faith throughout. The complaint alleged violations of Maglione's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought compensatory and exemplary damages.

Briggs moved for summary judgment and for attorney's fees. After submission of affidavits and oral argument. Judge Miner granted the motion for summary judgment but denied the motion for attorney's fees. Maglione appealed the grant of summary judgment and Briggs cross-appealed the denial of fees.

Maglione argues that summary judgment was improper because there was an issue of fact relevant to whether Briggs' actions were covered by the absolute immunity recognized by Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), or only by a qualified immunity. See also Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1981) (absolute immunity applies to all "quasi-judicial" activities). However, the only factual dispute Maglione points to is whether Briggs was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury. While this fact may be in dispute, it is clearly not material under Imbler. The presentation of a case to a grand jury falls squarely within the prosecutor's traditional function and is thus subject to absolute immunity under Imbler. See Powers v. Coe, 728 F.2d 97, 104 (2d Cir. 1984).

The complaint also alleged that Briggs was "in charge of the investigation" of the felony charge, suggesting that he was performing investigatory functions apart from the grand jury inquiry. If there were facts to support this conclusory description of Briggs' role, the case might fall within the narrow area that Imbler left unresolved, see 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. at 995; Taylor, 640 F.2d at 452. However, Maglione has not specified any facts or circumstances to support this claim. When Judge Miner repeatedly asked counsel to describe Briggs' actions, counsel for Maglione merely replied that Briggs had acted in bad faith. Since it is Briggs' conduct rather than his state of mind that is in issue, summary judgment was properly granted.

This leaves only the issue of attorney's fees. A prevailing defendant in an action brought under Section 1983 is entitled to attorney's fees if the plaintiff's claim was "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422, 98 S.Ct. 694, 701, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). The district court denied attorney's fees without findings. We must therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration of whether Maglione's claim was objectively frivolous. Davidson v. Keenan, 740 F.2d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 1984).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.


Summaries of

Maglione v. Briggs

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 16, 1984
748 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1984)

holding that plaintiff's allegation that the defendant-prosecutor was "in charge of the investigation" against him was conclusory, and therefore insufficient to escape the prosecutor's absolute immunity defense, because plaintiff failed to include any facts or circumstances to support this claim

Summary of this case from Sims v. Monaghan

acknowledging that a claim based on a prosecutor's pursuit of an investigation and an indictment might have survived if there was evidence "that he was performing investigatory acts apart from the grand jury inquiry"

Summary of this case from Lawlor v. Connelly
Case details for

Maglione v. Briggs

Case Details

Full title:DAVID MAGLIONE, APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE, v. RONALD BRIGGS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 16, 1984

Citations

748 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

Sims v. Monaghan

Monaghan's attempt to secure an indictment against Plaintiff is similarly protected. Maglione v. Briggs, 748…

Lawlor v. Connelly

Contrary to Lawlor's reading, the Barbera opinion acknowledges that absolute immunity applies to a…