qualified immunity if the prosecutor’s conduct as an investigator satisfies the two-step test for qualified immunity outlined by the Supreme Court in Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. Thus, immunity decisions regarding the liability of a state prosecutor depend on “ ‘the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.’ ” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)). The Supreme Court has recognized that the “duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom.” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 43 d 553, 559 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Prince v. Wallace, 568 F.2d 1176, 1178-79
holding that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs claims that the prosecutor conspired to withhold evidence and to create and proffer perjured testimony holding that district court properly dismissed claims in  2241 petition that had been decided in previous habeas action holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed