Ken Blevins v. David Hudson — Danielson, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that Hudson is entitled to qualified immunity on all of Blevins's claims, but questions extending absolute judicial immunity to Hudson. It reasons that Hudson did not exercise independent judgment or perform adjudicative functions because a committee conducted the grievance hearing, evaluated the evidence, and made the findings. The concurrence therefore agrees with the result solely on qualified-immunity grounds.