Ward

MEMORANDUM *

In this case we are asked to consider whether 1) the doctrine of absolute immunity shields Martinez from suit and 2) Terhune can be held liable under a respondeat superior theory.

The record reflects that Ward denied the allegations forming the basis for the return proceeding and requested that Martinez: 1) assign him a lawyer and 2) subpoena the two police officers for the hearing. Both requests were denied by Martinez, who gave reasons for her denial. The hearing proceeded; Ward and his parole agent testified and the police report and parole violation were both considered.

Ward’s appeal challenges Martinez’s decision to act in the role of hearing officer after predetermining that the matter was *909 straight forward in pre-hearing interviews and refusing to appoint counsel on that ground. He also claims that her refusal to 1) subpoena the two police officers 2) appoint counsel and 3) continue the hearing when the officers did not appear violated his right to counsel, to confront adverse witnesses, and to due process. We understand, but reject his arguments.

Our review of summary judgment decisions regarding absolute immunity and § 1983 liability for supervisors…