Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

FILARSKY v. DELIA

Docket No.: 10-1018
Certiorari Granted: 09/27/11
Argued: January 17, 2012
Decided: 04/17/12

Topics:

Fair Labor Standards Act, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Section 1983, absolute immunity, fiduciary obligations, immunity from suit, privacy, probable cause, qualified immunity, self-incrimination

PartyNames: Steve A. Filarsky v. Nicholas B. Delia
Petitioner: Steve A. Filarsky
Respondent: Nicholas B. Delia

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 621 F.3d 1069

Steve A. Filarsky
v.
Nicholas B. Delia
Question Presented:

In Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 408 (1997), a bare majority of this Court declined to extend qualified immunity to private prison guards, but expressly noted a historical basis of immunity for private lawyers working "at the behest of the sovereign." Id. at 407. The Richardson majority also expressly did not preclude qualified immunity for private parties working as "adjunct[s] to government." Id. at 413. Based on Richardson, the Sixth Circuit has accorded immunity to such "private" lawyers. Cullinan v. Abramson, 128 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 1997). Contravening Richardson and expressly disagreeing with Cullinan, the Ninth Circuit in this case denied qualified immunity to a "private" lawyer retained by the government solely because of his "private" status, even though it accorded qualified immunity to all of the individual government actors involved, thereby completely exonerating them for the very same conduct, which did not violate any clearly established rights. App., infra, 4-5, 12-24. The question thus presented is: Whether a lawyer retained to work with government employees in conducting an internal affairs investigation is precluded from asserting qualified immunity solely because of his status as a "private" lawyer rather than a government employee.

Question:

If a private lawyer is retained by the government, is that attorney precluded from claiming qualified immunity solely because he or she is a private lawyer rather than a government employee?

FILARSKY v. DELIA
ORAL ARGUMENT

01/17/12

Listen to Oral Argument in FILARSKY v. DELIA
Holding: REVERSED
Vote: 9-0
Majority: Unanimous
Concurring: Ginsburg,Sotomayor

FILARSKY v. DELIA
Case Documents

1FILARSKY v. DELIA Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
2FILARSKY v. DELIA Oral Argument Audio
3FILARSKY v. DELIA Oral Argument Audio (January 17, 2012)
4FILARSKY v. DELIA Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
5Opinion in FILARSKY v. DELIA
6BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
7cases/2010/10-1018/briefs/pet/amici/10-1018_petitioneramcunsbaand6state-localgrps.pdf
8BRIEF OF DRI--THE VOICE OF THE DEFENSE BAR AS AMICUS CURIAE
9BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
10BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
11BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
12BRIEF FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS ANDOTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
13BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
14BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT