bears the burden of proving entitlement to it.” Christy v. Pa. Tpk. Comm’n, 54 F.3d 1140, 1144 (3d Cir.1995). From the pleadings, we cannot .conclude that the Prosecutors are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. With respect to the first factor, even if the Commonwealth would be required to pay for any judgment Munchinski might obtain, this alone is insufficient to grant Eleventh Amendment immunity. Furthermore, “Pennsylvania’s Constitution expressly defines District Attorneys as county rather than state officers.” Carter, 181 F.3d at 349 (emphasis omitted). While we do not rule out the possibility that the Prosecutors may be able to adduce facts at some later stage in the proceedings showing that they are entitled to sovereign immunity notwithstanding this fact, see id. at 352-53 (<HOLDING>), such entitlement is not evident on the record
recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability holding that foster parents are not state actors recognizing that the possibility that pennsylvania district attorneys could be considered state actors to the extent that they are enforcing state law and performing other purely prosecutorial duties holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors