Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Problem:district courts and state courts have found judges to be judicially immune from criminal charges relating to the performance of judicial duties. See Chaplin, 54 F.Supp. at 934-35 (sustaining a judge's plea at bar that he should be immune from indictment and prosecution for depriving a citizen of civil rights "under the color of any law" in judicial proceedings in his court); In re Petition of Dwyer, 486 Pa. 585, 406 A.2d 1355, 1360 (1979) (finding "that the petitioners are quasi-judicial and/or quasi-proseeutorial officers ... [and] in the absence of allegations of bad faith or corruption, the petitioners, in granting the extensions and variance, are insulated from criminal prosecution for the consequences of their actions"); Commonwealth v. Tartar, 239 S.W.2d 265, 266-67 (Ky.App.1951) (<HOLDING>); In re McNair, 324 Pa. 48, 187 A. 498, 502
Holding statements: (A) holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 1983 (B) holding that the circuit court properly sustained a demurrer to the indictment of a judge for misfeasance in office because judges acting in their official capacities should be protected from harassment by either civil suits or criminal prosecutions (C) holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under 1983 (D) holding that an action brought against the state officials in their official capacities was not properly removed to federal court because the district court lacked jurisdiction (E) holding that state employees acting in their official capacities are insulated from liability for money damages
Solution:
(B)