signatures on complaint forms from a state Circuit Court. As in the case against Ireland, all criminal charges against the Josephs were dismissed upon preliminary examination in the district court. Relying upon Imbler, the Joseph panel held that the prosecutors were protected by absolute immunity for “knowingly obtaining] issuance of criminal complaints and arrest warrants against the Josephs based on false, coerced statements.” “The decision to file a criminal complaint and seek issuance of an arrest warrant are quasi-judicial duties involved in ‘initiating a prosecution.’ ” As such, they are protected under Imbler, for “securing the person of the defendant is part of initiating a prosecution and should be insulated.” See also Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1139 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)- ... Absolute prosecutorial immunity will
holding prosecutor absolutely immune from suit for deciding to investigate and conspir ing to present false charges to the grand jury 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 holding prosecutor absolutely immune for deciding to pursue criminal charges despite challenge to his motivation holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony