Michael T. Swift v. State of California Department of Corrections Keith Tandy, and Steve Christian Maritza Rodriguez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that absolute immunity did not apply to parole agents investigating parole violations and recommending initiation of parole revocation proceedings
• holding that absolute immunity did not apply to parole agents investigating parole violations and recommending initiation of parole revocation proceedings
• holding that Parole Board officials “are 14 entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for decisions ‘to grant, deny, or revoke parole’ 15 because these tasks are ‘functionally comparable’ to tasks performed by judges”
• holding that California parole agents were not entitled to absolute immunity in regards to the investigation of the plaintiff’s alleged parole violations, as this activity is akin to a law enforcement, not a judicial, function
• applying a qualified-immunity analysis to a parole officer’s investigation of parole violations and recommendations for revocation
• “It is well established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).