simply trial, ... the district court should resolve any immunity question at the earliest possible stage of the litigation.” Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 483 (3d Cir.1995) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) and Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions[) generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727; see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)(<HOLDING>). “[W]hether an official protected by qualified
recognizing that qualified immunity shields officials unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous holding that public officials are immune from suit for discretionary functions like training under louisiana law holding that officials are immune unless the law clearly proscribed the actions they took holding that while witnesses enjoy absolute immunity for their actions in testifying they are not immune for extrajudicial actions such as an alleged conspiracy to present false testimony