The following excerpt is from Schneider v. Cnty. of Sacramento, Civ. No. S-12-2457 KJM KJN (E.D. Cal. 2014):
immunity. Id. at 1660-61. The court agreed that the attorney's part-time status did not control the inquiry, id. at 1665, but instead examined the common law in 1871, when 42 U.S.C. 1983 was enacted, to determine whether it distinguished between public and private citizens in extending immunity to those involved in the type of investigation at issue. Id. at 1662. It then considered whether the purposes behind qualified immunity are also applicable when a private actor undertakes a governmental function. Id. at 1662-66; see also McCullum v. Tepe, 693 F.3d 696, 701-02 (6th Cir. 2012) (stating the first prong of Filarsky's analysis requires a court to determine "whether a person in the same position as the party asserting qualified immunity would have been immune from liability under the common law of the late Nineteenth Century").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.