independence and insulation from communication with hearing officers about specific eases. Should this change in the future by restructuring defendant’s position or by other means, the result might well be different. Cf. Cleavinger, 474 U.S. at 208, 106 S.Ct. at 504 (“Congress could even consider putting in place administrative law judges to preside at prison committee hearings.”). C. Qualified immunity Even though defendant is not entitled to absolute immunity with respect to plaintiffs claims for damages, he may be entitle 557988 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 1994); Silva v. Sanford, 91-CV-1776, 1994 WL 455170, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1994) (same); Gilbert v. Selsky, 867 F.Supp. 159, at 162-64 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 1994) (same) with Sealey v. Coughlin, 857 F.Supp. 214, 218 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (<HOLDING>); Cortez v. Selsky, 91 Civ. 1905 (RWS), 1994 WL
holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee holding that the considerations underlying absolute prosecutorial immunity at common law dictate the same absolute immunity under  1983 holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding selsky entitled to absolute immunity