were under color of state law. The defendants take the position that they were acting as private citizens, rather than Illinois police officers, when they arrested Rambo in Indiana. Since a constitutional violation requires state action, the defendants maintain that they could not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. As Johnson clarified, Mitchell permits interlocutory appeals only where the defendant is a public official asserting a defense of qualified immunity. Johnson, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2155; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 527-28, 105 S.Ct. at 2816. Defendants cannot assert a defense of qualified immunity, thereby invoking our jurisdiction under Mitchell, by claiming that they acted as private citizens. See Nelson v. Streeter, 16 F.3d 145, 149 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The defendants’ contention that they acted as
holding that appellate court need not analyze and address in writing each and every argument issue or claim raised and properly before us on appeal holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal holding that a letter utilized by the appellant in his argument would not be considered on appeal because it was not properly before the trial court holding argument not asserted before district court is waived on appeal holding that the defendants argument that they acted as private citizens was not properly before us on interlocutory appeal