prison guards in their position would have believed that the conduct was within the scope of their authority. This, alone, precludes summary judgment in their favor on the qualified immunity defense, if not precluding the defense altogether. See In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.1997). As the Fourth Circuit explained in In re Allen: Before permitting an official to claim qualified immunity a court must determine that the official’s acts were not clearly established to be beyond the scope of his authority. The defendant official bears the burden of demonstrating that the conduct of which the plaintiff complains “falls within the scope of the defendant’s duties.” Shechter v. Comptroller of New York, 79 F.3d 265, 268 (2d Cir.1996); Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849
holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred  holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties holding that attorneys acts within scope of his authority are binding on client