*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 19 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW LEO LOPEZ, individually

and dba Andrew Leo Lopez, CPA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARK SHAPIRO, EVELYN L.

JARAMILLO, LUCIA ADRIANNA

RAMIREZ, BERNALILLO COUNTY

SHERIFF, and JOHN DOE, Sheriff’s

Deputy,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-2334

(District of New Mexico)

(D.C. No. CV-96-1757-LH/DJS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
1Lopez’s contempt conviction was eventually overturned on appeal.

-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The court therefore

honors the parties’ requests and orders the cause submitted without oral argument.

Andrew L. Lopez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986 civil

rights complaint. Lopez brought suit against Judge Mark Shapiro, a New Mexico

metropolitan court judge, Evelyn Jarmillo, Judge Shapiro’s secretary, Lucia

Ramirez, Judge Shapiro’s “court secretary,” and the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s

Office and sheriff’s deputy John Doe. Lopez alleged the Judge Shapiro violated

his civil rights when he held him in contempt of court for failing to appear at a

hearing on a parking violation.1 He further alleged that Jarmillo and Ramirez

violated his civil rights by participating in the issuance of a bench warrant for

Lopez’s arrest for failure to appear. Finally, Lopez asserted that the sheriff’s

office and deputy John Doe violated his rights when deputy Doe arrested him on

the bench warrant. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on absolute

judicial immunity. After a hearing on the matter, the district court agreed that the

defendants were immune and dismissed the suit.

This court has conducted a de novo review of Lopez’s complaint and agrees

with the district court’s conclusion that the complaint fails to state a claim. 

Taking all of the allegations set out in the complaint as true and construing them
-3-

in the light most favorable to Lopez, each of the defendants is entitled to absolute

judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991) (per curiam)

(holding judges are immune from suit for judicial acts unless those acts are “taken

in complete absence of all jurisdiction”); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-

59 (1978) (holding “the scope of a judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly

were the issue is the immunity of that judge” and that neither “commission of

grave procedural errors” nor acts “in excess of [the judge’s] authority” will

deprive the judge of immunity); Russ v. Uppah, 972 F.2d 300, 303 (10th Cir.

1992) (holding that “others performing judicial or ‘quasi-judicial’ functions enjoy

absolute immunity”); Newton v. Buckley, No. 96-4202, 1997 WL 642085, at *4

(10th Cir. Oct. 17, 1997) (unpublished disposition) (“The circuits are in general

agreement that a clerk’s issuance of a warrant involves a quasi-judicial acta and,

therefore, carries with it the protections of absolute immunity.”); Valdez v. City &

County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1286 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that police

officers “charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy[]

absolute immunity from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct

prescribed in that order.”).
-4-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New

Mexico is hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge