in an action at law [or] suit in equity.... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There are two ways in which an individual may be held liable under § 1983 — he may be sued for his own personal actions (“direct liability”), or, under certain limited circumstances, for the actions of his subordinates (“supervisoral liability”), see, e.g., Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.1988). When a government official is sued under a theory of direct liability, he may seek summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. To even be potential ly eligible for summary judgment due to qualified immunity, the official must have been engaged in a “discretionary function” when he performed the acts of which the plaintiff complains. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (<HOLDING>). It is the burden of the governmental official
holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law recognizing that supreme court has not clearly explained role of discretionary functions in qualified immunity analysis holding that qualified immunity extends to government officials performing discretionary functions recognizing the qualified immunity from liability extended to a police officer in performing discretionary functions achieves this balance holding that quasijudicial immunity extends only to officials who perform discretionary functions