Cited by

Dep’t, see also Burk, 215 Ariz. at 9 ¶ 8 (recognizing application of judicial immunity to “guardians ad litem, court-appointed psychologists, and probation officers”); Yamamoto v. Santa Cruz Cnty.

Dep’t, (“Judges of courts of general jurisdiction are not liable in a civil action for damages for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction or are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.”); – 25 (1938) (applying judicial immunit

“[T]he judiciary, in carrying out its functions, is entitled to absolute immunity.”

Dep’t, ) (court-appointed psychologist); ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2002) (GALs); ¶¶ 6–7 (App. 2019) (family court therapeutic interventionalist).

Adult Probation Dep't , , 321, ; see also Ashelman v. Pope , 793 F.2d 1072 , 1075 (9th Cir. 1986).

Adult Probation Dep't , , 321, , 40 (1984) (holding that judicial immunity "is granted to those who perform functions 'intimately related to,' or which amount to 'an integral part of the judicial process,' " and extends to "a non judicial officer who is delegated judicial duties in aid of the court," such as court-appointed psych

Dep’t, –22 (1984) (probation officers submitting presentence investigation reports); Lavit, 173 Ariz. at 98–99 (psychologist acting under court directive to evaluate family court litigants); Burk, 215 Ariz. at 12–13, ¶ 19 (court employee making child custody recommendation); ¶ 11 (App

Dep't, (judicial immunity applies to judges and those who perform functions "intimately related to" or "an integral part of" the judicial process).

Dep’t, 6 A judge loses that immunity only when acting in a non-judicial capacity or in “complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); see also Acevedo, 142 Ariz. at 321, 690 P.2d at 40 (“[Judges] are not liable i

Dep’t, -22 , -41 (1984) ("Those officers, employees, and agents who assist the court in the judicial process are also entitled to absolute immunity.”); , ("nonjudicial personnel are entitled to immunity when carrying out court directive”) (q

On appeal from that decision this court reversed, holding that the alleged failure to supervise was not covered by immunity from civil liability

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc); Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Dep’t

I. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO REQUEST WARRANT/DELAY IN FILING PETITION TO REVOKE In Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Dep’t, , the supreme court indicated that probation officers are afforded absolute immunity regarding some acts performed in connection with judicial proceedings.

The supreme court again considered immunity issues in Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Dep’t, , in which the plaintiffs alleged that probation officers had negligently supervised a probationer who had molested the plaintiffs’ children.

Id.; cf. Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Probation Dep’t, , (discussing “judicial acts”).