Opinion of the Court — Goss v. Oregon

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 10, 2002
Case: Goss v. Oregon
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** FANNER, Senior Judge, Presiding. We affirm the district Court’s partial dismissal and partial summary judgment for defendants on immunity grounds. The district court properly dismissed Goss’s claim against District Attorney Se-well because a prosecutor’s decision to file charges is afforded absolute immunity. 1 Even if we accept Goss’s contention that Sewell took himself out of his prosecutorial role by signing the criminal complaint as a complaining witness, Sewell would be entitled to qualified immunity for the reasons discussed below. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goss’s motion to amend his complaint. A prosecutor’s decision as to when to dismiss charges is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity because it is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” 2 and involves the prosecutor’s “role as advocate for the State.” 3 Thus, Goss had no chance of prevailing on his claim that Sewell should have dismissed the charges sooner, and the district court properly denied Goss’s motion to amend. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the individual defendants Hood River County and Hood River County…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.