The defendants take the position that they were acting as private citizens, rather than Illinois police officers, when they arrested Rambo in Indiana. Defendants cannot assert a defense of qualified immunity, thereby invoking our jurisdiction under Mitchell, by claiming that they acted as private citizens. The defendants' contention that they acted as private citizens when they arrested Rambo is inconsistent with their qualified immunity defense. The defendants' argument closely parallels the one we recently rejected in Nelson. The defendants in Nelson argued that qualified immunity shielded them from liabil- ity because they had acted as private citizens when they committed the alleged constitutional violations.
Official immunity is for offi- cials.
Defendants cannot claim that they acted as pri- vate citizens while simultaneously seeking shelter under a doctrine that only protects public officials. Because the defendants' defense of qualified immunity is inconsistent with their contention that they did not act under color of state law, we cannot reach the merits of their argu- ment. The defendants next contend that the plaintiff has failed to produce competent evidence of his broken ribs. The appellants argue that this evidence is insufficient to support the district court's finding, for purposes of summary judgment, that the plaintiff suffered broken ribs. Under the defendants' version of the facts, only limited force was applied to com- pel the plaintiff to enter the police vehicle.