AZAPP is a blog that provides a thorough, up-to-date, and efficient resource to stay abreast of significant developments concerning civil cases in Arizona's appellate courts - the two Divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.
AZAPP Update (Subscribe)
Contributors
Archives
AZAPP Blog
<< View Current Articles
Thursday, September 9, 2004
DeSilva v. Baker: Division One Holds Probation Officers Absolutely Immune for Issuing Revocation Petitions
This case is a legal malpractice action. In the underlying action the plaintiff, DeSilva, sued probation officers and the Maricopa County sheriff's Office (MCSO) for injuries sustained when he was incarcerated after a petition for revocation of his probation was issued. The underlying action was dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the malpractice action the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant lawyer because the claim could not have succeeded against either the probation officers or the MCSO. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that, while probation officers are absolutely immune from liability for decisions regarding the revocation of probation, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a causal connection existed between MCSO's failure to promptly treat DeSilva and the ultimate injuries he suffered.
According to the court, the question of absolute judicial immunity for probation officers under these circumstances is one of first impression in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit. Utilizing the "functional approach" the court concluded that the preparation of revocation papers is integral to the judicial process. Consequently, probation officers are entitled to the same protection afforded judges and cannot be held liable for performance of those acts.
As noted above, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment related to the MCSO claim because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a delay in treatment proximately caused or exacerbated DeSilva's injuries.
The decision was written by Judge Kessler and joined by Judge Snow and Judge Pro Tempore Brutinel
This case is a legal malpractice action. In the underlying action the plaintiff, DeSilva, sued probation officers and the Maricopa County sheriff's Office (MCSO) for injuries sustained when he was incarcerated after a petition for revocation of his probation was issued. The underlying action was dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the malpractice action the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant lawyer because the claim could not have succeeded against either the probation officers or the MCSO. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that, while probation officers are absolutely immune from liability for decisions regarding the revocation of probation, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a causal connection existed between MCSO's failure to promptly treat DeSilva and the ultimate injuries he suffered.
According to the court, the question of absolute judicial immunity for probation officers under these circumstances is one of first impression in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit. Utilizing the "functional approach" the court concluded that the preparation of revocation papers is integral to the judicial process. Consequently, probation officers are entitled to the same protection afforded judges and cannot be held liable for performance of those acts.
As noted above, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment related to the MCSO claim because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a delay in treatment proximately caused or exacerbated DeSilva's injuries.
The decision was written by Judge Kessler and joined by Judge Snow and Judge Pro Tempore Brutinel
