Stop — You Can't Sue These People

You’ve been wronged. You know it. You’ve done your research, you’ve gathered evidence, and you’re ready to file your § 1983 complaint. You name every government official who played a role in what happened to you.

And then your case gets partially dismissed before it even starts — because some of those people cannot be sued, no matter what they did.

This isn’t qualified immunity, where officers can argue the law “wasn’t clearly established.” This is absolute immunity — a complete, unconditional shield that blocks your claim entirely. No factual dispute. No balancing test. Just: dismissed.

Knowing who has absolute immunity before you file saves you time, filing fees, and credibility with the court. Here’s who you can’t touch.

Judges

Judges have absolute immunity for any act performed in their judicial capacity. It doesn’t matter if the judge was biased, wrong, or even corrupt. If they were acting as a judge — ruling on motions, issuing orders, presiding over your case — they cannot be sued under § 1983.

This comes from Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), and it’s been reaffirmed repeatedly. The Supreme Court has extended judicial immunity even to judges who acted with malice or in excess of their authority, as long as they didn’t act in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

What does “clear absence of all jurisdiction” mean? Almost nothing defeats it. A traffic court judge sentencing someone to death would be acting without jurisdiction. A family court judge issuing a criminal warrant might be. But a judge who makes a terrible, biased ruling within their general jurisdiction? Immune.

The exception that isn’t: You might think a judge who conspired with police to railroad you can be sued. Generally, no. If the conspiratorial acts were performed in the judge’s judicial capacity, immunity still applies.

What you can do instead: Appeal the decision. File a judicial conduct complaint with your state’s judicial disciplinary commission. These aren’t satisfying substitutes, but they’re the only channels available.

Prosecutors

Prosecutors have absolute immunity for anything related to their advocacy function — deciding to prosecute, presenting evidence at trial, making arguments to the court, selecting charges.

This comes from Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). The rationale is that prosecutors need to make tough decisions without fear of personal liability.

Where immunity ends: Prosecutors are not immune when they act as investigators or administrators rather than advocates. If a prosecutor personally directed the police to conduct an illegal search, fabricated evidence before charges were filed, or made statements at a press conference — those are investigative or administrative acts, not advocacy, and absolute immunity doesn’t apply.

The line between “advocacy” and “investigation” is blurry, and courts usually give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt. But it’s a real distinction worth exploring if the prosecutor was actively involved in the investigation rather than just making charging decisions.

The practical trap: Most pro se plaintiffs who are angry at a prosecutor are angry about the decision to prosecute or how the case was handled in court — and those are precisely the acts that are absolutely immune. Save your energy for the officers who actually violated your rights.

Legislators

Federal, state, and local legislators have absolute immunity for legislative acts — voting, debating, drafting legislation, and anything “integral to the deliberation and communicative processes” of the legislative body.

This is called legislative immunity and comes from the Speech or Debate Clause (for federal legislators) and common law (for state and local legislators).

What’s covered: A city council member who votes for a policy that leads to police misconduct is immune for that vote. Even if the policy is unconstitutional.

What’s not covered: A council member who personally directs the police chief to target a specific person isn’t acting in a legislative capacity — that’s an executive act, and immunity doesn’t apply.

Witnesses

Witnesses who testify in judicial proceedings — including police officers testifying at trial or before a grand jury — have absolute immunity for their testimony, even if they lie.

Yes, even perjury is shielded by absolute immunity in the context of § 1983. The remedy for lying under oath is a criminal perjury prosecution, not a civil rights lawsuit.

The critical exception: This immunity covers testimony, not the underlying investigation. If an officer fabricated evidence before testifying — wrote a false report, planted evidence, lied in a warrant affidavit — those investigative acts are not protected by testimonial immunity. The officer may still have qualified immunity, but not absolute immunity.

Grand Jurors

Grand jurors have absolute immunity for their actions as grand jurors. You cannot sue a grand jury member for returning an indictment against you, even if the indictment was baseless.

Court Reporters, Clerks, and Similar Officials

Court clerks and similar officials generally have quasi-judicial immunity — absolute immunity for acts that are an integral part of the judicial process. Filing documents, issuing summonses, and recording proceedings are all protected.

Who You CAN Sue

Now that you know who’s off-limits, focus your energy on the defendants who are actually reachable:

• Police officers (individual capacity) — They get qualified immunity, not absolute immunity. QI can be defeated.
• The municipality — Cities and counties have no immunity at all under Monell. If you can show a policy or custom caused the violation, the city pays.
• Supervisors — Chiefs, sergeants, and commanders can be sued if you can show their personal involvement or deliberate indifference.
• Prosecutors acting as investigators — If they stepped outside their advocacy role.
• Private actors — If they conspired with state actors (§ 1985(3)) or acted under color of law.

The Bottom Line

Before you file, go through your defendant list and ask: does this person have absolute immunity for what I’m suing them for? If the answer is yes, drop them from the complaint. Every defendant you include who gets dismissed on immunity grounds makes your case look weaker and wastes the court’s time — and yours.

Name the right defendants. Sue the people you can actually reach. That’s where your case lives or dies.