Term: 2011
Docket: 10-1018
Steve A. Filarsky, Petitioner v. Nicholas B. Delia.
- Pro
10-1018 FILARSKY V. DELIA DECISION BELOW: 621 F.3d 1069 CERT. GRANTED 9/27/2011 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-55514
In the case of Steve A. Filarsky v. Nicholas B. Delia, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of private attorney Steve Filarsky who was hired by a city to conduct an internal investigation into potential misconduct by firefighter Nicholas Delia. The court held that even though Filarsky was not a public employee, he was entitled to qualified immunity from civil lawsuits related to his work for the government because he was acting on behalf of the city at the time of his actions. Delia had sued Filarsky after being ordered during an interrogation about alleged misuse of sick leave to produce materials purchased for home renovations which were suspected as evidence against him; this order violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures according to lower courts' rulings. However, with its decision, SCOTUS extended protections typically given only to government employees (qualified immunity) also onto private individuals working temporarily for governments under certain circumstances - such as conducting investigations or consulting services - thus shielding them from personal liability when performing their duties within reasonable legal boundaries.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of Steve A. Filarsky v. Nicholas B. Delia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that private individuals temporarily retained by government entities to carry out their work should not be entitled to seek qualified immunity from lawsuits under Section 1983 of Civil Rights Act, a federal statute permitting citizens to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations. She contended that extending such protections would blur the distinction between public servants who are accountable to the public and private parties who are not subject to democratic controls or institutional checks against abuses of power. Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential misuse of this privilege by unscrupulous contractors seeking legal protection while engaging in questionable conduct on behalf of government agencies.
