Gay v. Parsons

Absolute immunity may apply when "the official is performing a duty functionally comparable to one for which officials were rendered immune at common law." Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)

An inmate sued psychologists who prepared a risk assessment report for the Parole Board, alleging racial and religious discrimination under § 1983. The psychologists assigned error to the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on absolute immunity. On appeal, the psychologists claimed they were entitled to absolute immunity as their evaluating function in producing the inmate’s risk assessment was “integral to” the Board’s quasi-judicial function. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 484 (1991). Given the close functional comparability between judges and quasi-judicial officers, the courts have extended absolute immunity to quasi-judicial officers. But such “immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches.” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988). The test to determine absolute immunity is “whether the official is performing a duty functionally comparable to one of which officials were rendered immune at common law.” Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court found that, unlike a judge, the psychologists’ role was primarily informative and did not bind the Board to a particular decision. Therefore, the Court held that the psychologists were not entitled to absolute immunity. Affirmed.