however, is irresponsive to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, which is based on absolute immunity. Absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity are separate and distinct defenses to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. More specifically, qualified immunity focuses on whether officials’ actions were in violation of clearly established law, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Absolute legislative immunity, on the other hand, can be invoked whenever the officials’ actions are legislative in nature regardless of their motivations. Gallas v. Supreme Court, 211 F.3d 760, 773 (3d Cir.2000). 3 .Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is also dismissed. See Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (<HOLDING>) 4 . Among the candidates for the nomination
holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities in actions brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983 holding that municipalities are immune from liability for punitive damages under 42 usc  1983 in part because a municipality  can have no malice independent of the malice of its officials damages awarded for punitive purposes therefore are not sensibly assessed against the governmental entity itself holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc  1983 holding that port authority is immune from punitive damages