A judge has immunity when acting in the course of a judicial proceeding over which he has jurisdiction. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity encompasses all judicial acts unless the judge's actions clearly fall outside the judge's subject-matter jurisdiction.
A judge will not be deprived of immunity because he was in error, took action maliciously, or was in excess of his authority—instead, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Judicial acts include those performed by judges in adjudicating or otherwise exercising their judicial authority over proceedings pending in their courts.
Whether an act is judicial or nonjudicial is determined by the nature of the act; that is, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, as opposed to other acts that simply happen to have been performed by a judge.
Judicial immunity provides immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages. Thus, allegations of bad faith or malice will not overcome immunity, given that such allegations would require discovery and possibly trial to resolve. Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from liability for judicial acts, no matter how erroneous the act or how evil the motive, unless the act is performed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
The factors courts consider in determining whether a judge's act is judicial are whether (1) the act complained of is one normally performed by a judge; (2) the act occurred in the courtroom or an appropriate adjunct such as the judge's chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case pending before the judge; and (4) the act arose out of an exchange with the judge in the judge's judicial capacity.
These factors are broadly construed in favor of immunity. Not all factors must be met for immunity to exist. In some circumstances, immunity may exist even if only one factor is met. The factors are not required to be given equal weight; rather, they are weighted according to the facts of the particular case.
By comparison, quasi-judicial immunity and other similar terms, such as official immunity or qualified immunity, are all used interchangeably to refer to the same affirmative defense available to governmental employees sued in their individual capacities.
Government employees are entitled to official immunity from suit arising from the performance of their (1) discretionary duties in (2) good faith as long as they are (3) acting within the scope of their authority.
In California, as in other states, judges are granted absolute judicial immunity for actions taken while performing their judicial duties, provided those actions are within the scope of their jurisdiction. This immunity applies even if the judge's decisions are erroneous, malicious, or exceed their authority, as long as they are not acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. The determination of whether an act is judicial hinges on factors such as whether the act is a normal function of a judge, occurs in the courtroom or a related setting like chambers, centers around a case before the judge, and arises from the judge's judicial interactions. These factors are interpreted broadly to favor immunity, and not all need to be met for immunity to apply. The weight given to each factor depends on the specifics of the case. This immunity is from suit itself, not just from damages, meaning that judges cannot be sued for performing judicial acts, regardless of allegations of bad faith or malice. In contrast, other government employees may have qualified or official immunity for discretionary acts performed in good faith within their authority, but this is not as broad as judicial immunity.
