Opinion ID: 2982202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: legal standard—federal immunity

Text: “Whether a defendant is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a legal question that this Court reviews de novo.” Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 374 (6th Cir. 2009). The denial of qualified immunity premised on a factual dispute is not immediately appealable. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). “To the extent that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity turns on an issue of law, -4- Case No. 12-2669 Brent v. Wenk et al. however, the Supreme Court has held that the denial constitutes a final, appealable decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Sheets v. Mullins, 287 F.3d 581, 585 (6th Cir. 2002).
“[S]ocial workers are absolutely immune only when they are acting in their capacity as legal advocates—initiating court actions or testifying under oath—not when they are performing administrative, investigative, or other functions.” Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 775 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “The official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that immunity is justified in light of the function she was performing.” Id. at 774. “When applied, [t]he defense of absolute immunity provides a shield from liability for acts performed erroneously, even if alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 724 F.3d 687, 694 (6th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As set forth in Andrews v. Hickman County, 700 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012), we review district court decisions on qualified immunity as follows: First, we determine whether based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Third, we determine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 853 (internal quotation marks omitted). We may review the denial of qualified immunity only “to the extent that the appeal involves the abstract or pure legal issue of whether the facts -5- Case No. 12-2669 Brent v. Wenk et al. alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389, 394 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The inquiry into whether a right was clearly established must be conducted in light of the specific context of the case. [It must be] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right . . . [and] in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Andrews, 700 F.3d at 853 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id.