◆ SpookStack

OPINION OF TILE COURT. 9 dence to-cnable him to reach the jury with his claim.’’ ITahn v. Sargent, supra, 523 F.2d at 464. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the Supreme .Court’s clear statement that governnient officials raising immunity: defenses to damage suits may properly be awarded sum- “mary judgment. In recognizing qualified immunity for most federal officals, the Court recently said: . [D]amage suits concerning constitutional violations need not proceed to trial, but can be terminated on a properly supported motion for summary judgment based on the defense of immunity. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. at 250. In responding to such a motion, plaintiffs may not play dog in the manger; *. and firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil , Procedure will ensure that federal officers are not harassed by frivolous lawsuits. Butz v. Economou, supra, 98 S. Ct. at 2911, 46 U.S.L.W. at 4960.6 .In Scheuer, a §-1983 action brought against various state officials by the estates of students killed at Kent State University, the Court had required further proceedings on the issue of good faith ‘‘either by way of summary judg- ment or by trial on the merits.’’ Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. at 250. See also Procunier v. Navarette, 484 U.S. 355 (1978), where summary judgment was upheld for state . prison officials’ asserting qualified immunity for interfer- ence with prisoners’ mail. There are two competing considerations bearing on “ whether summary judgment should be granted in civil rights cases where qualified immunity is asserted. The traditional reluctance to grant summary judgment in cases involving state of mind issues (such as good faith) is owns amen aeem 6 oo oee ouemer © ee ee ert wee es seneereg os . SS NES SSeS Cm * This statement expressly contravened the minority view, which 2 was that summary judgment would rarely be appropriate in an a action in which the central issue was an official’ state of mind. ° if Butz v. Economou, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2921, 46 U.S.L.W. 4952, 4965 : (June 29, 1978).