Richard Postma, Jr. v. Stephen Goor

MEMORANDUM

The facts and procedural posture of this case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. Appellant Richard W. Postma, Jr. appeals the district court’s grant of Appellees Stephen Van Goor’s and Mark Woelber’s motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment decision based on absolute or qualified immunity. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). We review for abuse of discretion attorney fee awards made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on Appellees’ prosecutorial immunity, but we reverse its grant of attorney’s fees.

Absolute prosecutorial immunity attaches to prosecutors for acts within the scope of their duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-29, 431 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). This immunity also covers bar officials, administrative law judges, and agency prosecutors “so long as they perform functions similar to judges and prosecutors in a setting like that of a court.” Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court…