Immunity Shields Prosecutors Accused of Wrongful Detention

Monday, March 9, 2026

Page 3

Ninth Circuit:

Immunity Shields Prosecutors Accused of Wrongful Detention

Opinion Says Decision by Riverside District Attorney’s Office to Hold Man Wrongly Accused of Murder for Years After Deputy Was Allegedly Instructed to Withhold Other Suspect’s Confession Is Protected Conduct

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a District Court judge did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings to Riverside County and its former district attorney, Paul Zellerbach, as well as several of his supervising prosecutors, in a lawsuit accusing the lawyers of violating the rights of an allegedly developmentally disabled man who spent more than three years in jail awaiting trial for a murder for which he was later adjudged factually innocent.

Even though the plaintiff asserted in his operative pleading that multiple line prosecutors were removed from the case due to expressing “serious concerns” about his guilt and that a recording of another suspect confessing to the murder was withheld from the defense, the court declared, in a memorandum decision filed on Thursday, that absolute immunity shields the lawyers from liability in the case.

Reasoning that the attorneys’ actions were taken in the name of the people of the state of California, the court further concluded that a purported policy of “pursuing convictions at any cost and punishing any prosecutor who resisted” that allegedly supported or directed the conduct “could not be attributed to the County.”

2010 Murder

The question of liability arose after Roger Wayne Parker was arrested for the 2010 murder of Brandon Stevenson and held in pretrial custody until 2014, when prosecutors moved to dismiss due to insufficiency of evidence. He claimed that, during that time, Deputy District Attorney Lisa DiMaria and her colleague, Chris Ross (now in private practice), were assigned to his case and each expressed doubt about the evidence against him to their supervisors.

According to the plaintiff, DiMaria was taken off the case after expressing “serious concerns” about his guilt to her supervisor, Sean Lafferty (now a Riverside Superior Court judge), and Ross was similarly removed after telling Lafferty that he had obtained recordings of jail calls in which plaintiff’s roommate at the time of Stevenson’s death, Willie Womack, admitted to the murder.

In July 2021, Parker filed a complaint against Zellerbach, Lafferty, and two other assistant district attorneys, Tricia Fransdal (who is now on inactive status with the State Bar) and Jeff Van Wagenen (who now serves as CEO of Riverside County).

Wrongful Detention

In his operative pleading, Parker asserted so-called Tatum-Lee claims, named after two Ninth Circuit cases recognizing liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for officials who detain a plaintiff while knowing facts that make the incarceration wrongful, as well as a cause of action against the county, under Monell v. Department of Social Services, for having allegedly unconstitutional policies or customs in place. He alleged:

“For almost four years, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted Roger Wayne Parker for a murder that the District Attorney knew Parker did not commit. In fact, District Attorney Zellerbach and his supervisory assistant district attorneys insisted on prosecuting Parker notwithstanding the express recommendations of two different trial lawyers in the office, both of whom repeatedly told their supervisors…to dismiss the case because Parker was innocent.”

On Aug. 21, 2024, District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the pleading without leave to amend.

Absolute Immunity

Bernal noted that “[p]laintiff does not identify…any cases…in which a court has strayed from the rule that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for his decision to withhold exculpatory evidence” and remarked:

“[W]hile the Court acknowledges that the allegations of withheld evidence and Plaintiff’s lengthy, and unjustified, detention are repugnant, it cannot construct a workable definition of a Tatum-Lee violation that is so egregious as to defeat absolute immunity….‘To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty. But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.’ ”

Senior Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea as well as Circuit Judges Bridget Shelton Bade and Kenneth K. Lee signed Thursday’s decision affirming the defense judgment.

General Rule

Saying that “[t]he district court correctly concluded that absolute immunity shields Zellerback, Lafferty, Fransdal, and Van Wagenen from liability for Parker’s prolonged pre-trial detention,” the panel noted that the general rule of liability for officials who knowingly subject a person to wrongful detention is not without qualification.

Pointing out that prosecutors are shielded by absolute immunity when performing traditional functions of an advocate but not when acting as an administrator or investigator, they opined:

“Parker’s first theory of causation is that Zellerback, Lafferty, Fransdal, and Van Wagenen prevented dismissal of charges against him (and therefore prolonged his detention) by ‘administer[ing] a code of conduct demanding that line prosecutors pursue conviction at any cost.’ Failure to dismiss charges is unquestionably protected by absolute immunity….Parker contends, however, that setting and enforcing a code of conduct is an ‘administrative’ activity not covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity.”

Rejecting that characterization, they remarked:

“Parker correctly asserts that prosecutors do not have absolute immunity when making employment decisions or in setting an office conduct policy….But Parker’s injury does not stem from an employment decision or an office conduct policy. Rather, the alleged ‘code of conduct’ was simply the means of supervising his prosecution, and it was the decision to continue his prosecution that caused his injury, not the particular means of carrying out that decision. Whether supervising by direct oversight or by setting a general policy, ‘[a]n attorney supervising a trial prosecutor who is absolutely immune is also absolutely immune.’ ”

Exculpatory Evidence

As to his assertion that the defendant attorneys could have effected his release by disclosing the exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as they were constitutionally required to do, the judges commented:

“Precedent firmly establishes that performance of this constitutional duty is protected by absolute immunity….We are not at liberty to overrule a precedential decision by a prior panel of our court, and we may not overrule a decision of the Supreme Court….Accordingly, the district court properly entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the supervising prosecutors.”

Addressing the Monell claim, they noted that “Parker asserts that Zellerback…established a policy of ‘pursuing convictions at any cost and punishing any [line] prosecutor who resisted,’ ” but concluded that “[t]he allegedly injurious policy…cannot be attributed to the County” because any action taken by the line prosecutors in accordance with the policy is taken in the name of the people of the state of California.

Reasoning that “granting Parker leave to amend” to allege that the defendants are liable for failing to train line prosecutors on their ethical obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence would “be an exercise in futility,” they declared:

“Parker’s proposed amendment would not establish causation….Even if there was deficient training, those line prosecutors…repeatedly advised their superiors of their belief that Parker’s prosecution was being conducted in violation of their constitutional and ethical obligations, yet the supervising prosecutors nonetheless pressed forward with their decisions to continue prosecuting the case and withhold exculpatory evidence. Those decisions constitute a ‘superseding cause’ of Parker’s injury.”

The case is Parker v. County of Riverside, 24-5602.

Lafferty is up for reelection this year.

Zellerbach, who is currently listed as inactive with the State Bar, suffered a public reproval in 2016 after he was convicted in 2015 of misdemeanor vandalism for damaging a campaign sign of a rival running against him during his re-election campaign to retain his position as district attorney. He lost the race in 2014, having only served one term in the office.

Before running for the top prosecutor role, Zellerbach had served as a Riverside Superior Court judge, from 2000 until he was elected district attorney in 2011. He was publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) in 2007 for engaging in political activity that may have created the appearance of bias or impropriety.

CJP had previously publicly admonished him for attending a baseball game while a jury was deliberating without arranging for another judge to take the verdict, which was reached while he was attending the competition. Zellerbach received an advisory letter for making harsh comments to a doctor who was late to court.