With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Miller was in no way authorized by the other members of TCPFA to make the Liar Statements, nor were such statements made pursuant to any “deliberate choice” by TCPFA as a whole. Accordingly, municipal liability may not attach to Miller’s actions. E. Individual Capacity Claim For the reasons explained in Parts V.AC, a reasonable jury could conclude that Miller’s statements to the press constituted a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied his first summary judgment hurdle for qualified immunity. Miller may still be entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, however, if Plaintiffs alleged right was not “clearly established at the time official action was taken.” See Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139, 1151 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Miller’s arguments in support of qualified

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 question of qualified immunity dovetails with the substantial inquiry in a  1983 action in that both depend on the specific contours of the constitutional right at issue
C: holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right
D: holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity
D.