actually deny the motion to dismiss, but instead deferred ruling on the motion and lifted its discovery stay, permitting discovery on the issue of absolute immunity. But we see this as a distinction without a difference. As the Supreme Court has explained, absolute immunity creates not only protection from liability, but also the right not to have to answer for one’s actions at all. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (explaining that “the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action”). A litigant is therefore entitled to a ruling on a motion to dismiss on the pleadings based on official immunity before the commencement of discovery. Id. at 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the district court’s ruling
holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity recognizing that ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established