opinion: David DALOIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles ROSE, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Shea, F.B.I. Agent, Ronald Kosednar, Special F.B.I. Agent, John Coleman, Special F.B.I. Agent, Robert Daley, New York City Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
  No. 883, Docket 87-2489.
  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  Submitted April 4, 1988.
  Decided June 10, 1988.
  David Daloia, pro se.
  Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., E.D. N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert L. Begleiter, M. Lawrence Noyer, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for Federal defendants-appellees.
  Dana Robbins, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the City of New York, New York City, for defendant-appellee Daley.
  Before OAKES and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
  The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
  PER CURIAM:
  Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), held that law enforcement officers are entitled to absolute immunity from liability in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) for monetary damages resulting from the officer’s testimony at criminal trials. This appeal presents a question arguably left open in Briscoe: whether absolute immunity also attaches to officers tor their testimony at pretrial adversary proceedings. We join the other courts who have considered the issue in holding that it does.
  Plaintiff-appellant David Daloia was one of several persons arrested on September 24, 1982 and charged with bank robbery. According to Daloia, the house at which he was arrested was searched without a warrant. After a two-day suppression hearing held in December 1982, the evidence seized at the house was found admissible. After a jury trial, Daloia was convicted on all counts and is presently incarcerated at Lewisburg Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania.
  In December 1984, Daloia filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive relief against the federal prosecutor who tried the case and against the F.B.I. agents and New York City police officer who testified at the suppression hearing. He claimed that the agents and the officer perjured themselves at that hearing and that two of the agents also lied at his trial. He also asserted that the prosecutor knowingly presented the agents’ and officer’s false testimony, used a guilty plea allocution for investigative purposes, and transmitted false information to New York State parole authorities.
  The district court held that all defendants were entitled to absolute immunity under Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), and Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995-96, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and that Daloia’s claims for injunctive relief were without merit because he had an adequate remedy at law. The district judge then dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1982). Daloia filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s decision.
  Taking into account that a pro-se complaint is “not subject to as rigorous a standard as formal pleadings prepared by an attorney,” Washington v. James, 782 F.2d 1134, 1138 (2d Cir.1986) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam)), we construe Daloia’s Section 1983 claim as a Bivens action against the federal defendants. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
  The prosecutor’s activities in this case were all “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); see Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 360-61 (2d Cir.1987), and he is therefore entitled to absolute immunity. Similarly, Briscoe v. LaHue immunizes the F.B.I. agents from any action based upon their testimony at Daloia’s trial. 460 U.S. at 342-46, 103 S.Ct. at 1119-21.
  Daloia’s remaining claim is against the F.B.I. agents and the arresting New York City police officer for their testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing. This claim is made possible by a footnote in Briscoe v. LaHue which stated that:
  [t]he petition [for writ of certiorari] does not raise the question of immunity for testimony at pretrial proceedings such as probable-cause hearings, nor does petitioners’ brief discuss whether the same immunity considerations that apply to trial testimony also apply to testimony at probable-cause hearings. We therefore do not decide whether respondent LaHue is entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly false testimony at two probable-cause hearings regarding petitioner Bris-coe.
  Id. at 328-29 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. at 1112 n. 5. However, the Ninth Circuit recently held that there is “no principled basis for distinguishing between the [adversarial] pretrial proceedings and the trial on the merits in determining whether absolute immunity should be granted to a police officer witness.” Holt v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 125 (9th Cir.1987); see also, Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1466 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 97, 98 L.Ed.2d 58 (1987); Tripati v. INS, 784 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir.1986). We agree with that observation and with the conclusion that “[i]n adversarial pretrial proceedings as well as at trial, absolute witness immunity is essential if the truth-seeking function of the proceeding is to be fully served.” Id. at 127. Accordingly, we hold that police officers who testify at adversarial pretrial proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity from liability based on that testimony.
  We have considered Daloia’s other arguments, including his claim that the federal defendants failed to raise the defense of absolute immunity, and have found them to be unsupported by the record.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.