Martin argues that even if Hendren is absolutely immune from liability for implementing the judge's orders, Hendren ceased to act in a quasi-judicial capacity when he carried out those orders using excessive force.
See Martin v. Board of County Comm'rs, 909 F.2d 402, 404–05 (10th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (holding officers not absolutely immune for using excessive force in executing arrest warrant). After
Martin was decided, however, the Supreme Court held a judge's order to use excessive force, issued in the judge's judicial capacity, was a judicial act for which the judge retained absolute immunity.
See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12–13, 112 S.Ct. at 288–89. The Court emphasized that the nature of the function being performed, not the particular act itself, controls the judicial immunity inquiry.
See id. The Court rejected the idea that the impropriety of a judge's act strips the judge of immunity, reasoning that “[i]f judicial immunity means anything, it means that a judge ‘will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error ... or was in excess of his authority.’ ”
Id. (quoting
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (ellipsis in
Mireles)). Although the
Mireles Court did not address quasi-judicial immunity, we find the Court's reasoning persuasive in this context. Absolute quasi-judicial immunity would afford only illusory protection if it were lost the moment an officer acted improperly. Further, the officers in
Martin were executing an arrest warrant away from the issuing judge's courtroom,
see Martin, 909 F.2d at 403–04, but Hendren was carrying out a judicial command in the judge's courtroom and presence. Because judges frequently encounter disruptive individuals in their courtrooms, exposing bailiffs and other court security officers to potential liability for acting on a judge's courtroom orders could breed a dangerous, even fatal, hesitation. “For the criminal justice system to function, ... courts must be able to assume their orders will be enforced.”
Patterson v. Von Riesen, 999 F.2d 1235, 1241 (8th Cir.1993).