lawyer states that the interview is her effort to come "forth to cooperate and not in effect to give a statement to be used in any trial because a trial is not anticipated, assuming the cooperation is here." Although it appears that a trial was not then anticipated in the case against plaintiff, this was apparently due to her cooperation in that interview, as shown by her attorney's statement. There is no indication in that interview that at the time of plaintiff's arrest or during her incarceration any of the defendants believed that there was no probable cause for plaintiff's arrest or knew of any information which would suggest that the original finding of probable cause was error. Similarly, the failure to prosecute others involved with Gibraltar Realty or the decision to nol pros the charges against plaintiff does not refute the defendants' evidence of probable cause.
Therefore, plaintiff has provided no evidence in response to this motion to show that at the time of arrest or incarceration defendants had any knowledge which would undercut the finding of probable cause. Since there is no evidence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of probable cause to arrest and incarcerate plaintiff, summary judgment is warranted in favor of all defendants.
IV. Immunity From Civil Liability Under § 1983
Even if there should be some doubt as to the appropriateness of summary judgment on the grounds discussed above, summary judgment for all defendants is appropriate due either to absolute prosecutorial immunity or to qualified good faith immunity. Section 1983 "is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418, 96 S. Ct. 984, 989, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1976).
The Supreme Court has held that a public prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for acts such as the initiation of a prosecution and presentation of the state's case which are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S. Ct. at 995. Furthermore, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that such absolute immunity extends to a prosecutor's efforts to secure information necessary to his decision to initiate a criminal prosecution. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203 (1979).
However in other circumstances only qualified immunity is available. A public prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity when performing administrative or investigative duties. See Forsyth v. Kleindienst, supra. In such activities, a prosecutor, like a detective, is a governmental official performing a discretionary function which entitles him to only qualified immunity. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974). Therefore, to the extent that defendants are not protected from suit by absolute immunity, they may raise the defense of qualified immunity which requires an evaluation of the objective reasonableness of their actions in light of clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982).
Defendants Biehn, Shantz and Sommers are all potentially protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. They would only be allowed qualified immunity if the liability-producing acts in the present case stemmed from administrative or investigative actions by them. Although some of these defendants may, arguably, have participated in or instigated the investigation of Gibraltar Realty prior to the arrest of plaintiff, there are no allegations that plaintiff's constitutional rights were in any manner infringed by the investigation of Gibraltar Realty except to the extent that the investigation led to plaintiff's arrest. The only claimed violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights occurred when complaints were executed against her by the Office of the District Attorney which led to her arrest and incarceration. These activities of public prosecutors fall squarely within the range of actions related to the initiation of a criminal prosecution which are protected by absolute immunity under Imbler and Forsyth. See e.g., Iseley v. Bucks County, 549 F. Supp. 160 (E.D.Pa.1982); Wilkinson v. Ellis, 484 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D.Pa.1980).
Even if these defendants were not afforded absolute immunity, they would have grounds for summary judgment under the qualified immunity of Harlow. Summary judgment would be warranted under that standard if plaintiff does not rebut defendants' showing that their conduct was objectively reasonable. Defendants have established that their conduct in issuing complaints against plaintiff was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The evidence they have mustered in support of their claims that probable cause existed for the arrest shows that the decision to execute the complaints was reasonable under the facts as then known to them. As discussed in the previous section of this Memorandum Opinion, plaintiff has not provided evidence which raises a question as to the reasonableness of these actions. Therefore, defendants Biehn, Shantz and Sommers are entitled to immunity from this suit.
Defendant Brosha, a county detective, does not have prosecutorial immunity but does possess qualified immunity. Therefore, if Brosha's actions related to plaintiff's arrest were objectively reasonable, he too is entitled to immunity. Under the facts presented by the defendants, Brosha's actions were reasonable not only in light of the strong evidence of wrongdoing in the investigative reports but also due to the fact that his investigation was conducted upon the request of the District Attorney's Office. He did not take part in the probable cause determination and he relied upon the decision made by the attorneys in the District Attorney's Office that plaintiff should be arrested. Plaintiff has brought forth no evidence that Detective Brosha had particular knowledge about the case which would have made his reliance upon the conclusions of these attorneys unreasonable. Thus, summary judgment will be granted for defendant Brosha due to his immunity from suit.
Due to the decisions with reference to the federal causes of action, this court will follow the direction of the Third Circuit in Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc., 540 F.2d 187, 196 (3d Cir.1976) and refrain from exercising pendent jurisdiction since there exist no extraordinary circumstances to warrant such jurisdiction.