Table of Contents |
I. | Background | 335 |
A. | The Underlying Facts | 335 | |
B. | The Development of this Litigation | 337 | |
II. | Procedural Challenge | 329 |
III. | Section 1983 Claims | 343 |
A. | Prosecutorial Immunity | 343 |
1. | Subornation of Perjury | 343 | ||
2. | Disclosure of Secret Grand Jury Information | 345 |
B. | Statute of Limitations | 347 |
1. | Malicious Prosecution | 348 | ||
2. | False Arrest and Abuse of Process | 350 | ||
3. | Conspiracy claims | 352 |
C. | Probable Cause | 352 | |
IV. | RICO Claims | 355 |
A. | Section 1962(a) | 356 | |
B. | Section 1962(c) | 358 |
1. | Person/Enterprise Identity | 358 | ||
2. | Racketeering Activity | 359 | ||
3. | Pattern of Racketeering Activity | 363 |
C. | Section 1962(d) | 365 | |
V. | Instructions on Remand | 367 |
The parties are hereby notified that the court shall consider the pleadings, and the documentary or sworn attachments thereto, in deciding any motion pressed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Any party desiring to submit any further brief or document in opposition or support of such motions must do so by February 10, 1988.
If ... matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
The parties are hereby notified that the court shall consider the pleadings, and the documentary or sworn attachments thereto, in deciding any motion pressed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Any party desiring to submit any further brief or document in opposition or support of such motions must do so by February 10, 1988.
[W]e believe that it is undesirable in general for a district court to enter summary judgment after receiving briefs and without holding a hearing unless it makes clear in its order that all affidavits and counter-affidavits must be filed with the briefs.... At the least, as a matter of good practice, we believe resort should not be had to [the authorization in Rule 78 for disposition of a motion without a hearing] unless it is made clear beyond all doubt that the parties must present their affidavits and counter-affidavits in addition to whatever facts appear in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.
Even if absolute prosecutorial immunity extends to the administrative and investigative functions of a United States Attorney, it is our opinion that certain paragraphs of Mr. Helstoski's complaint aver conduct which goes beyond the proper performance of these aspects of a prosecutor's job. We note, in particular, the several allegations of deliberate leaks by the prosecutor of false information concerning Mr. Helstoski in order to *346 damage his political prospects. It would appear that such activity, if it occurred would lie outside of the rationale for absolute immunity set forth in Imbler. At most, it would be subject to a qualified good-faith immunity.
A civil action for § 1983 malicious prosecution requires that: (1) the defendant initiate a criminal proceeding; (2) which ends in plaintiff's favor; (3) which was initiated without probable cause; and (4) the defendant acts maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the defendant [sic] to justice. We have held that a claim for malicious prosecution is actionable under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (citations omitted). Under these authorities, the section 1983 claim must include the elements of the common law tort as it has developed.
Defendants County and Party are enterprises affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1961, et seq.
[t]his statement manifests the legislative intent to incorporate the Supreme Court's holding in *362 United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 89 S.Ct. 534 [21 L.Ed.2d 487] (1969), into the RICO statute. Nardello stands for the proposition that alleging a state violation which falls within the generic category of the predicate offense is adequate to charge a violation of the Travel Act [18 U.S.C. § 1952].
[t]he plaintiffs must plead with particularity the ‘circumstances' of the alleged wrongdoing in order to place the defendants on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged. Only allegations of conspiracy which are particularized, such as those addressing the period of the conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy, and certain actions of the alleged conspirators taken to achieve that purpose, will be deemed sufficient.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |