* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 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 *

BeforeBALDOCK , EBEL, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of1 Lopez’s contempt conviction was eventually overturn ed on appeal. -2- this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ourt therefore honors the parties’ requests and orders the cause s ubmitted 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 Sh apiro’s secretary, Lucia Ramirez, Judge Shapiro’s “court secretary,” and the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office and sheriff’s deputy John Doe. Lopez allege d the Judge Shapiro violated his civil rights when he held him in contempt of co urt 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 i ssuance of a bench warrant for Lopez’s arrest for failure to appear. Finally, Lop ez asserted that the sheriff’s office and deputy John Doe violated his rights whendeputy Doe arrested him on the bench warrant. The defendants filed a motion t o 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 compl aint fails to state a claim. Taking all of the allegations set out in the compla int as true and construing them-3-

in the light most favorable to Lopez, each of the d efendants 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 a cts 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 [th e 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 invo lves a quasi-judicial acta and, therefore, carries with it the protections of absol ute 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 faci ally valid court order enjoy[] absolute immunity from liability for damages in a s uit challenging conduct prescribed in that order.”).-4-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is hereby AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge