immunity with regard to their decision to charge Munchinski. Specifically, the Court stated: Munchinski alleges that the Prosecutors ignored Bowen’s inconsistent interview statements and thus could not have reasonably believed there was probable cause to arrest and charge him. The arrest of a criminal defendant and the filing of charges are at the core of the prosecutorial function, and “[a] prosecutor is absolutely immune when making [the decision to initiate a prosecution], even where he acts without a good faith belief that any wrongdoing has occurred.” Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1464 (3d Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for this conduct. Id.; see also Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Munchinski v. Solomon, 618 Fed.Appx. 150, 154
holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity holding that a prosecutors filing of an arrest warrant and charging documents are protected by absolute immunity holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense