U.S. Supreme Court rules private lawyer is immune from suit under §1983

Listen to this article

By Pat Murphy
Dolan Media Newswires

A private lawyer can claim qualified immunity from a suit under §1983 over his actions in representing a public employer in an internal affairs investigation, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision.

The decision reverses a ruling from the 9th Circuit.

The defendant is a private attorney who was retained by the city of Rialto, Calif., to conduct interviews in internal affairs investigations. The city employed the plaintiff as a firefighter. The city commenced an internal affairs investigation regarding whether the plaintiff had obtained medical leave under false pretenses.

During an internal affairs interview, the defendant asked the plaintiff for permission to search the plaintiff’s home for evidence that he had been healthy enough to work on home improvement projects. The plaintiff refused, but city officials conducted a warrantless search of the plaintiff’s home anyway. The plaintiff sued under §1983, alleging that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.

The defendant argued he was entitled to the qualified immunity afforded government employees.

• Supreme Court wrestles with social media cases
• Supreme Court takes case about credit card swipe fees
• From bananas to baby socks, lawyers stick to routines before arguments
• Colleges should step up their diversity efforts after affirmative action ruling, the government says
• Stymied by the US Supreme Court, Biden wants voters to have the final say on his agenda

The Court agreed, holding that a private individual temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity under §1983.

“Though not a public em¬ployee, [the defendant] was retained by the City to assist in conducting an official investigation into potential wrong¬doing,” the Court said. “There is no dispute that government employees performing such work are entitled to seek the protection of qualified immunity.

“The [9th Circuit] rejected [the defendant’s] claim to the protection accorded [the city employees sued in this case] solely because he was not a permanent, full-time employee of the city. The common law, however, did not draw such distinctions, and we see no justification for doing so under §1983.”

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor filed concurring opinions.

U.S. Supreme Court. Filarsky v. Delia, No. 10-1018.