Whether the Supremacy Clause and the Separation of Powers doctrine preclude the federal judiciary from relying upon the federal common law defense of 'qualified immunity' to shield state officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Supremacy Clause and the Separation of Powers doctrine preclude the federal judiciary from relying upon the federal common law defense of “qualified immunity” to shield state officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Whether a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complainant is required to plead inter alia that the constitutional right at issue was “clearly established law” at the time of the state official’s challenged conduct to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based upon “qualified immunity”; and if so, whether such a requirement should be imposed, if at all, by amending the rules of civil procedure or by judicial interpretation of precedent. Whether the illegal removal of an elected official from office is a violation of the fundamental right to vote and have that vote count in federal and state elections under the substantive due process component of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and if so, whether that is “clearly established law” in the Eleventh Circuit. Whether private actors qualify as state actors subject to §1983 liability where it is alleged that: 1) they illegally pursued an emergency temporary injunction in state court to remove a duly elected official from office; and 2) after being denied relief in court, they forwarded the court’s non-final order of denial to the Governor requesting and obtaining his assistance in removing the elected official from office based thereon in violation of the state’s election laws.