By Victor Li

SANTA FE, N.M.—Citing the broad legal protections of prosecutorial immunity, a federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed the vast majority of actor Alec Baldwin’s civil lawsuit against the prosecutors who previously sought to convict him in connection with the fatal 2021 shooting on the movie set of Rust.

U.S. District Judge Kea Riggs of the District of New Mexico issued a ruling holding that former New Mexico prosecutors Mary Carmack-Altwies and Andrea Reeb were legally entitled to immunity regarding most of the civil counts brought against them by the actor. Riggs’ decision follows a closely related ruling issued weeks prior, in which she dismissed identical claims brought against special prosecutor Kari Morrissey under the exact same legal protections.

While Judge Riggs expressed clear judicial concern over the allegations of professional misconduct levied against Carmack-Altwies and Reeb, she emphasized that the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity exists to shield government lawyers from civil liability for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

“Even though the court is concerned by the allegations of misconduct by defendants Carmack-Altwies and Reeb, it recognizes that, as prosecutors, they are entitled to invoke the protection of absolute prosecutorial immunity,” Riggs wrote in her comprehensive memorandum opinion.

The underlying legal battle traces back to a tragic incident on October 21, 2021, on the Bonanza Creek Ranch movie set near Santa Fe, New Mexico. During a rehearsal for the Western film Rust, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was tragically killed, and director Joel Souza was injured, after a prop firearm held by Baldwin discharged a live round. The incident instantly sparked a massive, multi-faceted legal saga involving workplace safety investigations, criminal indictments, civil settlements, and fierce accusations of legal malpractice and governmental overreach.

Following years of intense scrutiny and grand jury proceedings, Baldwin was formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in 2023. However, the high-profile criminal case dramatically unraveled and was ultimately dismissed with prejudice in July 2024. The dismissal came after the presiding state judge ruled that the prosecution had committed “egregious discovery violations” by withholding crucial evidence—specifically, a batch of live ammunition turned in by a good Samaritan—from the defense team.

Seeking legal recourse for what his attorneys described as a politically motivated and legally flawed prosecution, Baldwin filed a civil lawsuit in early 2025. The complaint targeted the state prosecutors, alleging malicious prosecution, defamation, and severe civil rights violations stemming from how the criminal case was handled, investigated, and publicized.

Despite cutting the core of the lawsuit, Judge Riggs’ recent ruling did not entirely close the door on all aspects of Baldwin’s claims. The federal judge carved out specific exceptions where absolute prosecutorial immunity does not apply, allowing select portions of the litigation to move forward.

According to the court’s analysis, Carmack-Altwies does not enjoy immunity from claims tied directly to her alleged role in investigating and destroying the firearm involved in the shooting. Riggs noted that such actions fell outside the standard scope of courtroom advocacy, describing them as “too far removed from the judicial process.” Furthermore, legal claims concerning Carmack-Altwies’ alleged public media statements and her direct involvement in the preliminary law enforcement investigation are also permitted to proceed because the former prosecutor had not formally sought their dismissal in that motion.

Judge Riggs also addressed the contentious dual role of Andrea Reeb, finding that Reeb had indeed violated the separation of powers doctrine by simultaneously serving as a state legislator and as a special prosecutor on the high-profile case. Nevertheless, Riggs concluded that this constitutional structural overlap did not entirely strip Reeb of her underlying authority to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the judge declined to dismiss a handful of what she characterized as “vague and undated allegations” against Reeb, ruling that it was premature at this procedural stage to definitively determine whether immunity applied to those specific, less-defined claims.

Legal representatives for the defense expressed satisfaction with the court’s overarching decision to prune the bulk of the litigation. Luis Robles, the attorney representing the prosecutors, stated that his clients were both “relieved” and “heartened” by Judge Riggs’ comprehensive ruling.

Meanwhile, representatives and legal counsel for Alec Baldwin did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the federal judge’s decision to dismiss the majority of the claims. The ongoing civil litigation marks just one of several legal battlegrounds surrounding the tragic production, as various civil negligence suits and fallout proceedings continue to wind their way through the judicial system.