See Heiskell v. Roberts, 295 Ga. 795 (3), 764 S.E.2d 368 (2014) ("This doctrine of judicial immunity, which the Supreme Court of the United States has said ‘is as old as the law,’ is essential to the impartial administration of justice."). See also Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503 (1), 570 S.E.2d 282 (2002) (citing Peacock v. Nat. Bank &c. of Columbus, 241 Ga. 280 (2), 244 S.E.2d 816 (1978) ; Maddox v. Prescott, 214 Ga. App. 810 (1), 449 S.E.2d 163 (1994) ). There are two grounds on which a judge will be denied the absolute protection of judicial immunity: (1) committing an act that is nonjudicial in nature; or (2) acting in the "complete absence of all jurisdiction."

On appeal, this Court affirmed the application of judicial immunity, but reversed the dismissal of that part of the complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and remanded the case to the trial court. Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503 ( 570 SE2d 282) (2002). After this Court's decision, the chief judges of the superior and state courts and the presiding judge of the juvenile court of the Blue Ridge Circuit entered a second "standing order" superseding the original standing order that precipitated the lawsuit.

approving mother's ex parte petition to have her mentally challenged daughter sterilized, acted in his judicial capacity, and performed type of act normally performed only by judges, the lack of formality with which he proceeded did not render his action "nonjudicial" for purposes of depriving him of absolute immunity from damages liability); Withers , 304 Ga. at 398-99 (2), 819 S.E.2d 49 (holding that court administrator's act of preparing a report at the direction of the judge to aid in the judicial process is a function that is judicial in nature and protected by judicial immunity, thus barring plaintiff's § 1983 and state law claims); Heiskell , 295 Ga. at 801-02 (3) (a), 764 S.E.2d 368 (holding that former judge was entitled to judicial immunity from liability on counterclaims by county for alleged breach of contract, damages, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of judge's dismissal of 60 traffic cases during remainder of his term after he lost election); Earl v. Mills , 275 Ga. 503, 503-04 (1), 570 S.E.2d 282 (2002) (affirmed that judge was entitled to judicial immunity since he was acting in his judicial capacity when he issued a standing order creating de facto family court despite the fact that order was not supported by constitutional provision stating that only legislature could create such courts); Maddox , 214 Ga. App. at 812-13 (1), 449 S.E.2d 163 (holding that probate judge was entitled to judicial immunity in guardian's action claiming judge improperly approved earlier settlement agreement). Cf.Bordeaux , 352 Ga. App. at 403 (4), 834 S.E.2d 896 ("Although judges are immune from liability in civil actions seeking damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity, this immunity does not bar claims for declaratory or injunctive relief."

"Judicial immunity shields judicial officers from liability in civil actions based on acts performed in their judicial capacity that are not undertaken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction." Considine v. Murphy , 297 Ga. 164, 170, n. 4 (3), 773 S.E.2d 176 (2015) (citations omitted); see also Earl v. Mills , 275 Ga. 503, 504 (1), 570 S.E.2d 282 (2002). As both this court and the United States Supreme Court have explained, judicial immunity " ‘applies even when [a] judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly[:] it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.

“Judicial immunity shields judicial officers from liability in civil actions based on acts performed in their judicial capacity that are not undertaken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Considine v. Murphy, 297 Ga. 164 , 169 (3), n. 4 (773 SE2d 176 ) (2015) (citations omitted); see also Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503 , 504 (1) (570 SE2d 282 ) (2002). As both this court and the United States Supreme Court have explained, judicial immunity

West End Warehouses v. Dunlap, 141 Ga. App. 333 ( 233 S.E.2d 284) (1977). See also Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503, 504 (1) ( 570 S.E.2d 282) (2002) (affirming the dismissal of the portion of a complaint for damages against a judge since judicial immunity applied). [T]his immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.

Moore applied for a firearms license on December 13, 2005. Although judges are immune from liability in civil actions seeking damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity, this immunity does not bar claims for declaratory or injunctive relief. Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503 ( 570 SE2d 282) (2002). Upon finding that the "issue is one that is capable of repetition and will evade review," the superior court granted summary judgment to Judge Cranford. The superior court held that the probate court, which routinely had to wait over 60 days for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to return criminal history reports on applicants, had "discretion to go beyond the 60 day time period" when it was necessary to make sure the applicant was qualified.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503, 504 (2) ( 570 SE2d 282) (2002). See also Davis v. Standifer, 275 Ga. App. 769, 772 (1) (a) ( 621 SE2d 852) (2005).

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503, 504 (2) ( 570 SE2d 282) (2002). Davis' amended complaint contains the same factual disclosures as her original complaint, and, as explained above, those facts defeat her state law claims against Standifer by showing that his alleged misconduct occurred within the scope of his official duties.

In his last enumeration, Gordian challenges the constitutionality of the trial court hearing the matter. Cf. Earl v. Mills, 275 Ga. 503, 504-505(2) ( 570 S.E.2d 282) (2002). Gordian, however, did not raise this issue below.