Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Ninth Circuit Says Absolute Immunity Protects Extradition Decisions

Ninth Circuit Says Absolute Immunity Protects Extradition Decisions

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the decision not to extradite a criminal defendant is intimately associated with the criminal phase of the judicial process. Therefore, state officials participating in that decision are absolutely immune from suit.

 

Daniel Tavares served fifteen years in a Massachusetts prison for killing his mother. While there, he joined a white supremacist gang, assaulted and threatened staff and prisoners and made death threats against then-Governor Mitt Romney and then-Attorney General Thomas Reilly.

 

Just days before his June 2007 release, Tavares was arraigned for two violent assaults on prison staff. He was released on his own recognizance, but failed to appear for a court hearing and two warrants were issued for his arrest.

 

Tavares traveled to Washington State and Massachusetts officials asked Washington officials to help locate him. Once they did, however, Massachusetts officials did not extradite him from Washington because they had requested only a limited extradition warrant for the New England states.

 

Subsequently, in November 2007, Tavares murdered Beverly and Brian Mauck in their Washington home. Their parents and the personal representatives of their estates then brought federal suit against Massachusetts officials for failing to extradite Tavares in the months before the murders. The district court denied Defendants absolute immunity and they sought an interlocutory appeal.

 

The Ninth Circuit reversed, recognizing that "it has long been the law of this circuit that a decision whether to prosecute or not prosecute is entitled to absolute immunity." It then held that an extradition decision, "like the decision whether to prosecute" is "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." As such, the "defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their participation in that decision." See: Slater v. Clarke, 700 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2012).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Slater v. Clarke