Unpublished Dispositionvictor Howard Van Sant, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Henry E. Hudson; Helen F. Fahey, Commonwealth Attorney Forarlington County, Defendants-appellees, 816 F.2d 674 (4th Cir. 1987)
Annotate this CaseBefore PHILLIPS, SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
Victor Howard Van Sant, appellant pro se.
Waller Trolinger Dudley, Boothe, Prichard & Dudley, for appellees.
Helen F. Fahey, appellee pro se.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Howard Van Sant appeals from an order of the district court which granted defendants' motion to dismiss his suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
Van Sant sued a former Virginia Commonwealth's Attorney and his successor in office for malicious prosecution. After a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court properly dismissed the suit because both defendants are immune to liability for damages under Sec. 1983. The Supreme Court has held that a state prosecuting attorney acting within the scope of his prosecutorial duties is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under Sec. 1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). See also Kipps v. Ewell, 538 F.2d 564 (4th Cir. 1976); Weathers v. Ebert, 505 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 975 (1976).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
