Can a judge be held answerable in damages for acts performed in his judicial capacity?

Turning to other authority, "[i]t is a long-established rule that a judge is not to be held answerable in damages for acts performed in his judicial capacity." (City of Santa Clara v. County of Santa Clara (1969) 1 [225 Cal.App.3d 717] Cal.App.3d 493, 498, 81 Cal.Rptr. 643; accord, Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 759, 761, 169 Cal.Rptr. 467.) A recent case which is conceptually similar to this case has analyzed the relationship between common-law absolute judicial immunity and the Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff in Frost v. Geernaert (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1104, 246 Cal.Rptr. 440, sued seven superior court judges for fraud, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that the judges' common-law immunity had been abrogated by Government Code section 822.2 ⁵, when read with Government Code section 810.2 which defines the term "employee" to include a judicial officer.