Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tyrone Clofer filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against Jacob Frenkel, Eric Dubelier, and Joseph Iuzzolino, former Assistant District Attorneys in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Clofer alleged that the defendants acted beyond the scope of their duties as prosecutors when they suborned perjured testimony, which they then presented to the grand jury to obtain an indictment against him. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that absolute immunity barred Clofer’s claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that absolute prosecutorial immunity bars civil rights claims against the defendants, regardless of the specific allegations of misconduct. Prosecutorial absolute immunity extends to actions taken in the prosecutors’ official capacity in initiating and presenting evidence to a grand jury.
Even though Clofer alleged that the prosecutors suborned perjured testimony—serious misconduct—this conduct falls within the scope of actions protected by absolute immunity. The court relied on established Fifth Circuit precedent, including Hernandez v. W. Tex. Treasures Est. Sales, L.L.C., 79 F.4th 464 (5th Cir. 2023) and Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1987). Clofer had abandoned all other claims presented in the district court.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutors retain absolute immunity from Section 1983 civil rights claims for conduct within their prosecutorial function, including presenting evidence to grand juries
- Allegations of serious prosecutorial misconduct, such as suborning perjury, do not overcome absolute immunity protection
- Section 1983 does not provide a civil remedy for this category of alleged prosecutorial wrongdoing
- Litigants challenging prosecutorial conduct must pursue alternative remedies outside the Section 1983 framework
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s strong protection of prosecutorial absolute immunity. While the doctrine serves the important function of protecting prosecutors from excessive civil liability that might chill their decision-making and judgment, it also significantly limits civil remedies available to individuals who claim to have been harmed by prosecutorial misconduct. Even serious allegations of perjury facilitation do not create an exception to absolute immunity in this circuit.
Practitioners challenging prosecutorial conduct should note that Section 1983 claims will be foreclosed by absolute immunity doctrine. Other potential avenues include criminal prosecution, bar discipline, habeas corpus relief, or seeking relief in the underlying criminal proceeding itself, though these remedies may present their own barriers and limitations.