[the District], particularly when some of Ms. Furse’s actions and advocacy were completely ultra vires to the role she was tasked with fulfilling.” Pls.’ Opp’n to Furse & Covington Mot. to Dismiss at 3; see also id. at 14-18. In addition, the plaintiffs state that Covington “could have and should have provided sufficient training to Ms. Furse (but apparently did not) to differentiate what kinds of actions she could appropriately engage in as a prosecutor upon her assuming the six month, full-time pro bono rotation.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 18-23. The Supreme Court has held that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from civil suits based on their conduct in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (<HOLDING>). This absolute immunity extends to agency
holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune for activities intimately associated with the judicial process such as initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution holding that government attorney performing acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of litigation is entitled to absolute immunity holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability holding prosecutors immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases