Chauncey Marvin Holt v. Richard Modesto Castaneda

Good Law
832 F.2d 123·1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14828
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 6, 198787-5621California2,088 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alarcon, J.

The question presented in this case is whether a police officer who gives perjurious testimony during adversarial pretrial proceedings in a criminal matter is entitled to absolute witness immunity from liability for damages flowing from his testimony. Our reading of Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 , 103 S.Ct. 1108 , 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) compels us to conclude that a person may not maintain an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) against a police officer who gives perjurious testimony during pretrial proceedings in a criminal case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint in this case.

I.

Plaintiff-appellant Chauncey Marvin Holt (Holt) appeals from an order dismissing his First Amended Complaint (complaint) with prejudice. Holt’s pro se complaint sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) for violation of his federal constitutional rights as the result of perjurious testimony given by defendant-appellee Richard Modesto Castaneda (Castaneda) at pretrial proceedings in a criminal prosecution brought against Holt. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Castaneda gave perjurious testimony during a preliminary examination and a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.