that any officials had ever mounted such a defense); see also Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, et al., 842 F.2d 556, 561-62 (1st Cirl988) (Breyer,. J.) (noting, in an Eighth Amendment case, that public policy might be well served by a denial of qualified immunity to defendants asserting a cost defense because “indemnification by the state has the effect of transferring some of the human cost of the system, borne in the form of death and misery, to the public treasury, and thereby, perhaps, making the public more aware of those costs, and encouraging change”); Kosilek v. Maloney, 221 F.Supp.2d 156, 182 (D.Mass.2002) (rejecting a “cost defense” in a case involving the failure to provide adequate medical care); but cf., Houston v. Sheahan, 62 F.3d 902-OS (7th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), abrogated in part by Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d
holding that prison officials should not be made to paydamages for the consequences of legislative and judicial decisions holding acts of voting to be quintessentially legislative and the introduction of a budget to be formally legislative holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character holding that although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action holding that in the absence of a legislative invasion of constitutionallyprotected rights the judicial branch of government must respect and defer to the legislatures exclusive policy decisions