ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

January 05, 2018

Grand jury witness may claim absolute immunity regarding his or her perjurious testimony with respect to any §1983 claim based on such perjurious testimony



Grand jury witness may claim absolute immunity regarding his or her perjurious testimony with respect to any §1983 claim based on such perjurious testimony
Idrissa Adamou V Detective Edward J. Doyle [in
his individual capacity], USCA 2nd Circuit, No. 17255 [Summary Order]

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed this district court's denial of absolute or qualified immunity de novo claimed by the defendant, New York City police detective Edward J. Doyle.

The court, citing Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, with respect to absolute immunity and Benzman v. Whitman, 523 F.3d 119, with respect to qualified immunity, held that under Rehberg v Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, a grand jury witness, including a law enforcement officer, “has absolute immunity from any §1983 claim based on the witness’ testimony,” even if that testimony is perjurious.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled and Detective Doyle was "entitled to absolute immunity in this case because [the]  plaintiff’s claims are 'based on' Doyle's] allegedly false grand jury testimony, 'as that term is used in Rehberg' ...."

The Circuit Court reversed the district court's ruling to the contrary and remanded the matter to it "with instructions to grant Detective Doyle's motion to dismiss."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com