◆ SpookStack

+ judgment in cases involving state of mind "is counterbalanced by the desirability of screening: out frivolous actions through the summary judgment filter so as not to. discourage officials from taking neces~ sary and decisive action." Maiorana v. MacDonald, supra, at Slip Op. 9-10. Consequently, in qualified immunity cases the courts are obli- gated not to let cases go unnecessarily to the jury. Instead of resolving any doubt, no matter how inconsequential, in favor of letting a case go to the jury, in qualified immunity cases the courts are under an obligation to assure that only those cases go to the jury where a fact-finder can veasonably find for the plaintiffs. The panel decision here completely ignores. these principles and simply assumes that this case, notwithstanding the issue of qualified immunity, is 2/ just like any routine case presenting competing, factual contentions. The panel, instead.of engaging in the analysis required by Butz and Maiorana, has in effect held that a trial is required. simply because someone might disagree with the defense of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Butz v. Economou. had a different standard in mind. See Maiorana v. MacDonald, supra. Under the proper principles, it is clear that this case should not have gone to the jury’. As the majority recognized, qualified immunity is available to officials sued in the performance of their official duties except in two circumstances. First, the immunity defense is unavailable "if the constitutional right allegedly infringed . "2/ The issue of qualified immunity is currently before the Supreme Court. See McCollan v. Tate, 575 F.2d 509 (C.A. 5, 1978), cert. granted sub nom. Baker v. McCollan, 47 U.S.L.W. 3482. -6<