Absolute immunity is the standard answer to most complaints about prosecutors, and for good reason: charging decisions and courtroom advocacy would be impossible under constant civil exposure. But the immunity is functional, not personal.
What Kalina actually decided
A unanimous Supreme Court held that a prosecutor who personally attested to the truth of facts supporting an arrest warrant was acting as a complaining witness, not an advocate — and received only qualified immunity for that act. The title did not travel with her; the function did.
Why the distinction is practical
It means the analysis is document by document. What was this attorney doing when they did the thing complained of? Advocating, or swearing? The answer determines which immunity applies.
The documented application
See The Kalina Line and the full analysis.