With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a “person” subject to suit under §§ 1983 and 1985. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). 2. The district court also correctly dismissed the claims against the state prosecutors, defendants Kari Brady and Kevin Donley, because they are immune from suit under § 1983. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 124, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). To the extent they were performing investigative functions, and thus not protected by absolute immunity, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law, on the basis of which Mahle’s conviction was overturned, Crocker, indubitably was not clearly established at the time of the prosecutors’ actions. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 3. To state a claim for municipal liability

A: holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated
B: holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question
C: recognizing that qualified immunity shields officials unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established
D: holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established
D.