Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): still stands at the threshold of the qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g., Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 428 (6th Cir.1997) (“The question whether the uncontested facts demonstrated a constitutional violation is a pure question of law — and one from which an immediate appeal can be taken where qualified immunity has been denied.”); Sanderfer v. Nichols, 62 F.3d 151, 153 n. 2 (6th Cir.1995) (“the plaintiffs version of events, regardless of the sufficiency of the supporting evidence, does not state a claim”). Finally, it is clear that before addressing the substance of a claim of qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim of a constitutional violation at all. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s failure to rule on the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right (B) holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established (C) holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated (D) holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question (E) holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity