Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity Now Encompasses the Initiation of Civil Enforcement Actions:
Rodgers v. Torrez, 82 F.4th ___ (10th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Rodgers v. Torrez presented the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit with a focused but potentially far-reaching question: Does absolute prosecutorial immunity, traditionally applied to criminal prosecutions, also protect a district attorney from § 1983 liability when he initiates a purely civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief? Plaintiff-Appellant Wessley Rodgers contended that former Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez violated his First Amendment rights by naming him in a state suit aimed at halting the alleged activities of the New Mexico Civil Guard. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of absolute immunity; the Tenth Circuit has now affirmed, signaling a decisive expansion—or at least a clarification—of the scope of prosecutorial immunity within the circuit.

The parties:

• Wessley Rodgers – plaintiff, an alleged (but disputed) member of the New Mexico Civil Guard, speaker on a podcast that criticized government over-reach.
• Raul Torrez – defendant, at the time the elected District Attorney for New Mexico’s Second Judicial District (Bernalillo County), who brought the underlying state civil action.

The litigation therefore juxtaposed First Amendment retaliation claims against the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, forcing the court to decide which value—individual constitutional redress or systemic protection of prosecutorial advocacy—would prevail where civil enforcement is concerned.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Conducting a de novo review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Torrez. Applying a “functional approach,” the panel held:

• Drafting and filing a civil complaint to enforce state law, even where the proceeding is non-criminal, is a function “intimately associated with the judicial process.”
• Because Torrez acted as an advocate for the State of New Mexico, his decision to initiate and pursue the civil suit fell squarely within the ambit of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
• The motivation behind the filing—whether political, retaliatory, or otherwise—is irrelevant to the immunity analysis.

Consequently, Rodgers’s § 1983 claim for damages (and any ancillary equitable relief not argued on appeal) was barred.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion is anchored in a line of Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent:

• Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) – Established absolute prosecutorial immunity for activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase” of criminal proceedings. Rodgers builds directly on Imbler by extending its logic to civil enforcement.
• Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) – Emphasized the “functional approach”; immunity depends on the nature of the act, not the actor. The Tenth Circuit relied on this functional test to analogize civil initiation to criminal advocacy.
• Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir. 1991) – Extended immunity to state attorneys in “civil and administrative enforcement proceedings.” Pfeiffer provided the immediate precedent for the court to treat the civil complaint here as a prosecutorial act.
• Benavidez v. Howard, 931 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2019) – Clarified the continuum between advocacy (absolute immunity) and investigative/administrative functions (qualified/no immunity). Rodgers falls on the advocacy end.
• Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 2000) and Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) – Recognised immunity for initiating civil commitment proceedings and deciding whether to bring civil or criminal actions.
• Lerwill v. Joslin, 712 F.2d 435 (10th Cir. 1983) – Held that immunity applies even when the prosecutor exceeds technical statutory authority, so long as a “colorable claim” exists.

By synthesizing these authorities, the panel signaled that the form of the proceeding—criminal vs. civil—is not dispositive. What matters is whether the government lawyer is acting as an advocate in a function similar to presenting the government’s case.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. The Functional Test. The panel examined the nature of Torrez’s acts: preparing pleadings, filing a complaint, and seeking judicial remedies on behalf of the state. All are “core advocacy” functions.
2. Protection of the Judicial Process. Citing Chilcoat v. San Juan County, the court reiterated that immunity is meant to protect the system, not individual prosecutors, from retaliatory suits that could chill vigorous enforcement.
3. Motivation is Irrelevant. Even accepting Rodgers’s allegations of malicious, politically-motivated retaliation, immunity still attaches. This follows Lerwill and Supreme Court dicta that the immunity inquiry is objective.
4. Civil vs. Criminal Distinction Rejected. The court dismissed Rodgers’s attempt to cabin immunity to defensive or criminal contexts, pointing to Tenth-Circuit precedent where immunity covered both prosecutors initiating and defending civil matters.
5. Statutory Authority Non-decisive. Even if Torrez misread his statutory power, immunity remains unless there is “no colorable claim of authority,” again citing Lerwill.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

The decision carries several implications:

• Expanded Shield for Government Lawyers. Civil rights plaintiffs in the Tenth Circuit now face a steeper climb when suing state or local prosecutors over civil enforcement lawsuits. Claims for damages will likely be barred unless plaintiffs can allege purely administrative or investigative misconduct.
• Encouragement of Civil Enforcement. State attorneys may feel freer to employ civil injunctions and declaratory actions—e.g., against paramilitary activity, consumer fraud, or public-health violations—without fear of personal liability.
• Narrowing of First Amendment Retaliation Suits. Creative plaintiffs may need to reframe claims to seek prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against the officeholder in an official capacity, or rely on Ex parte Young-type suits, as damages claims against the individual prosecutor hit an immunity wall.
• Potential Circuit Split. Some circuits have hinted at limits to immunity where government lawyers engage in purely civil regulatory actions. If other circuits diverge, Supreme Court review could follow.
• Legislative Responses. State legislatures might clarify the scope of district attorneys’ civil authority, knowing that immunity now cloaks those actions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – A federal statute that allows individuals to sue state actors for constitutional violations.
• Absolute vs. Qualified Immunity – “Absolute” means complete protection from suit (damages) regardless of intent; “qualified” protects only if the official did not violate “clearly established” law.
• Prosecutorial Immunity – A subset of absolute immunity shielding prosecutorial advocacy functions. This case clarifies that it covers civil advocacy too.
• Functional Approach – Courts examine the nature of the act, not the actor’s job title, to decide if immunity applies.
• Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Court orders declaring rights (declaratory) or directing parties to act/stop acting (injunctive). Torrez’s underlying suit sought these, not money.
• Paramilitary Activity/Public Nuisance – The state alleged NMCG’s armed presence at protests constituted an unlawful private militia and public nuisance under New Mexico law.

5. Conclusion

Rodgers v. Torrez decisively affirms that absolute prosecutorial immunity extends to the initiation and pursuit of civil enforcement actions brought in the name of the state. By collapsing the civil-criminal divide for immunity purposes, the Tenth Circuit fortifies the protective barrier around government advocates even when their motives are suspect and their statutory footing debatable. For future litigants, the ruling signals that challenges to a prosecutor’s use of the courthouse as an enforcement tool must either (a) target non-advocacy conduct, (b) seek prospective relief against the office, or (c) persuade the Supreme Court to revisit the scope of prosecutorial immunity itself. In the broader legal context, the decision underscores an enduring institutional conviction: safeguarding the fearless exercise of prosecutorial functions is deemed worth the risk that occasional retaliatory or politically-motivated lawsuits may go unremedied.