Can a judge be held liable in civil action for misconduct in his or her actions?

In Perry v. Meikle, 102 Cal.App.2d 602, 605, 228 P.2d 17, it was held that when judicial officers act within their jurisdiction, they are not amenable to any civil action for damages; that no matter what their motives may be, they cannot be inquired into; and that judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly.

[171 Cal.App.2d 449] In Hardy v. Vial, 48 Cal.2d 577, 582, 311 P.2d 494, it was held that the rule of absolute immunity, notwithstanding malice or other sinister motive, is not restricted to public officers who institute or take part in criminal actions; that it has been extended by the federal decisions to all executive public officers when performing within the scope of their power acts which require the exercise of discretion or judgment.