◆ SpookStack

° ‘ O Justices and Judges named in the above-captioned case are entitled to absolute immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 112 S. Ct. 286, 288-89 (1991). Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion of conspiracy by these defendants does not abrogate absolute judicial immunity. See e.g., Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980); Moses v. Parwatikar, 813 F.2d, 891, 893 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832 (1987); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522-23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1037 (1985). Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with respect to all Justices, Judges, and Magistrates named in this action. Similarly, law clerks, court clerks, and court personnel enjoy an absolute quasi-judicial immunity from an action for damages.! Law clerks are immune from liability for actions taken while assisting judges in carrying out judicial functions. See e.g., Oliva _v, Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 1988). In addition, court clerks and other court personnel who perform functions that are an integral part of the judicial process are protected by absolute immunity. See @:%., Boyer v. County of Washington, 971 F.2d 100, 102 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113--S. Ct. 2966. (1992); Smith v. Erickson, 884 F.2d 1108, 1111 (8th Cir. 1989) (court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity when performing tasks which are an integral part of the judicial process unless the clerk acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction). Plaintiff has failed to allege any action taken by these defendants for which eo. 1 In addition, based on the allegations in the complaint, the « attorneys named who prosecuted plaintiff in 1976 or represented the United States in civil cases involving plaintiff are entitled to absolute immunity. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978); , 424 U.S. 409 (1976). 6