Koubriti v. Convertino’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Ojfficials enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability related to their performance of “prosecutorial” functions. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 , 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991). The burden of proof is on the official seeking absolute immunity, however, to prove that the behavior in question falls in the category of behavior that merits this higher level of protection. Id. In Burns v. Reed, the Supreme Court mandated that courts use a “functional approach” when determining whether a government official’s actions fit within the category of actions traditionally entitled to absolute immunity. Id. Using this approach, courts must look to “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 229, 108 S.Ct. 538 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). Functions that serve as an “integral part of the judicial process” or that are “intimately associated with the judicial process” are absolutely immune from civil suits. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 430, 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Meanwhile, functions which are more “investigative” or “administrative” in nature, because they are more removed from the judicial process, are subject only to qualified immunity. Bur ns, 500 U.S. at 486 , 111 S.Ct. 1934 . Although “[t]he line between a prosecutor’s advocacy and investigating roles might sometimes be difficult to draw,” Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 , 347 (2d Cir.2000), we are not without some guidance to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rogers v. O'Donnell

2. “Koubriti attempts to distinguish his claim by focusing on the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the alleged exculpatory information produced by Convertino’s investigation instead of the actual non-disclosure of the information. In his brief to this court, Koubriti highlights the fact that Convertino traveled to Jordan some fifteen months before the trial began and investigated the buildings allegedly depicted in the day planner sketches. The district court, in agreeing with Koubriti, stated' that “immunity cannot extend to actions by a prosecutor that violate a person’s substantive due process rights by obtaining, manufacturing, coercing or fabricating evidence before filing formal charges, even if the subsequent use of that evidence is protected by absolute immunity.” The argument made by Koubriti and the district court fails to recognize that Koubriti is not requesting relief for some alleged violation that took place during Convertino’s trip to Jordan. There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that Koubriti is arguing that he is entitled to relief here because of some due process violation Convertino committed while he investigated the case in Jordan. That would be a different claim.... Instead, what we have in the instant case is an allegation that relies on Brady — a case dealing with the nondisclosure at trial of exculpatory information — and is based on the non-disclosure of a pertinent fact, not the underlying investigation itself. There is no claim here”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 F. Supp. 3d 730 - Buchanan v. Metz

3. “directly implicated by the defense of qualified immunity and [is] properly before us on interlocutory appeal”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rodriguez v. Swartz