225

Also about judges immunity:

Judges apparently interpret this part in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 

" in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable"   

for themselves as being applicable even on malicious actions by judges. 

Aside, from the question of constitutionality of such law, it still does not apply on malicious actions by the judges.

That is because the phrase "judicial capacity"  does not include actions intentionally made with disregard to the judicial role. If I tell you that you should follow what your doctor say then he tells you a medically bad advice while joking with you, does that mean I also told you to follow that advice? 

How could that law be understood in this way by Judges not interested in making their job that exclusive party for themselves?