from Edmond’s Sixth Amendment claim that she sought Lyles’ indictment to deny Edmond his counsel of choice, we need look no farther than Imbler v. Pachtman. In Imbler, the Supreme Court accorded absolute immunity to a prosecutor who was accused of maliciously and unlawfully charging the plaintiff with murder. 424 U.S. at 415-16, 96 S.Ct. at 988. While recognizing that “[a]t some point ... the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” and that “[d]rawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions,” the Imbler Court specified that absolute immunity protects prosecutors’ decisions “whether and when to prosecute.” Id. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. at 995 n. 33; see also Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450, 452 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Edmond’s Sixth Amendment claim against Amell
holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated recognizing that decision to initiate prosecution is immunized under imbler recognizing that  ejquity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution solely to prevent such a prosecution  holding in case where key witness cooperated only after his arrest that even though the prosecution has probable cause it is under no duty to initiate criminal proceedings until it is satisfied that it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt recognizing third partys right to initiate dependency proceedings under chapter 39