Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 42-2 Filed 08/13/2008 Page 24 of 27 <br /> I <br /> [A]bsolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, so long as the official's <br /> actions were within the scope of the immunity." Imbler v. Pachtman, <br /> 424 U.S. 409, 419 n. 13, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Absolute <br /> immunity is an extreme protection, insulating the immune party from "any <br /> judicial scrutiny of the motive for and reasonableness of official action." <br /> i <br /> Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 918 (2d Cir.1987). Root v. Liston, 444 F.3d 127„ <br /> 130 (2006). <br /> The purpose of absolute immunity is not to protect government officials <br /> as individuals, but rather to ensure that they can perform their jobs without <br /> harassment by civil,suits and without intimidation by the threat of suit. <br /> Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). <br /> In determining whether absolute immunity attaches, we therefore consider "the <br /> nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." <br /> Forrester v. -White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) <br /> Under this functional approach, persons enjoy absolute immunity "not because of <br /> their particular location within the Government but because of the special nature of <br /> their responsibilities." Butz, 438 U.S. at 511, 98 S.Ct. 2894. Root v. Liston, <br /> 444 F.3d 127, 130 (2006). <br /> 17 <br />