at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The Funches, however, asserted that the defendants violated official policy by refusing to accept their documents for filing. Accordingly, their claim against the County and the Clerk’s office in their official capacities cannot succeed. Second, although we disagree with the District Court’s analysis, we agree that the employees of the Clerk’s office were immune from suit and that the claims against them should have been dismissed. The District Court determined that the court personnel were immune because, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 205.2, they had discretion to refuse to accept documents for filing that did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 124 L.Ed.2d 391 (1993) (<HOLDING>). However, the proceedings involving the
holding that qualified immunity extends to government officials performing discretionary functions recognizing that supreme court has not clearly explained role of discretionary functions in qualified immunity analysis holding that public officials are immune from suit for discretionary functions like training under louisiana law holding that quasijudicial immunity extends only to officials who perform discretionary functions holding that the clerk who refused to accept filing of complaint at the direction of the judge was entitled to quasijudicial immunity