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. 17‐255 [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: