In California Butte County, District Attorney, Michael Ramsey, perceived the petitioner to be Mentally ill, discriminated against the petitioner, denied him equal protection and due process, retaliated against him with retaliatory prosecution and failed 51/50 attempt, and was deliberately indifferent despite multiple attempts of alerting him to such behaviour.

In his findings and recommendations, the Federal District Court Judge stated that the district attorney is absolutely immune and Appellate Court denied review and closed the case. Courts in other jurisdictions have asserted that district attorneys are not immune in such circumstances.

Did the district court err in its findings and recommendations that the district attorney Michael Ramse is Absolutely immune?

Should there not be a uniformity among district and appellate courts in reference to District Attorneys ' absolute immunity in such circumstances?

Did the district court err in finding the district attorney absolutely immune?