Nice answer. I think "Stump v. Sparkman," 435 U.S. 349 (1978) might be most helpful to me as it appears to have established the Good Faith Requirement, i.e., clarified that bad faith or malicious acts are an exception to absolute immunity. I think if you pasted/cited wikipedias en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity#Significant_cases I could accept your answer, probably will anyways but that would be a good addition. Thanks very much!

@RonnieRoyston Hard to know. If your complaint is from something that the judge did while on the bench, the "good faith" requirement is probably insurmountable as a matter of law. Also, you do realize that in Stump v. Sparkman, the judge won.

raised bond from 15k to 200k bcs missed court date

@RonnieRoyston Absolute judicial immunity completely bars your claim without any doubt.

that is a factually barren assertion but I would love to hear details

@RonnieRoyston Setting bond is a quintessentially discretionary judicial act that a judge has jurisdiction to enter. It is smack dab in the center of things that are protected by absolute judicial immunity from liability. Suing the judge is 100% the wrong thing to do in this situation.

The Eighth Amendment meaningless? "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

@RonnieRoyston The remedy is in the appellate process and a possible interlocutory appeal, not suing the judge. You can never vindicate constitutional rights by suing a judge.

thanks for info. ...what about The "malice exception" to judicial immunity?

@RonnieRoyston Not even close to "malice." You have absolutely no conceivable, remotely colorable argument for suing a judge. Doing so is a horrible, horrible idea that is likely to have severe negative consequences for you in the criminal justice process. Get a public defender. Ask for help from that lawyer in the proper criminal justice process.

@RonnieRoyston what malice exception? My search for judicial immunity malice found pages saying things like "Absolute immunity covers even conduct which is corrupt, malicious or intended to do injury" and "judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice." The thing to do here is appeal, as ohwilleke says, not sue. But even an appeal may be ill advised; the normal response of a court to someone out on bond failing to appear is going to be harsh.

@RonnieRoyston By my reading, Stump v. Sparkman establishes exactly the opposite of what you're saying. I've elaborated in my answer below.

Underlying criminal case is disposed. Lots of comments here, all good, but none sufficient - absolute judicial immunity is said to be deceptively simple, i.e. it ain't that easy or simple. Great article here on the subject: harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/…

100 U. S. 100 U. S. 339; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, 1642-1643 (1956). The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a "minister" of his own prejudices.

@RonnieRoyston Absolutely nothing to do with an ordinary decision to change the amount of an appearance bond following a failure to appear.

“Excessive bail shall not be required.” seems in conflict with your characterizing as 'absolutely' unrelated raising pre-trial bond for non-violent charge to 4x a murder bond? Am I misunderstanding something?

@RonnieRoyston Yes. The issue is not what the constitution requires. Instead, the issue is what you are entitled to do about it if the constitution is violated by a judge. The remedy for a judge setting an excessive bail amount is an interlocutory (i.e. pre-trial) appeal of that decision to a higher court, not a lawsuit against the judge. Judges make incorrect decisions all the time, but if you are harmed by a judge's incorrect decision, your remedy is to appeal that decision not to sue the judge who is immunity from civil liability for that decision as a result of absolute judicial immunity.

"Absolute" immunity only covers judicial acts, not ministerial acts. You wouldn't sue, I already did. The system exists to resolve these types of disputes.

@RonnieRoyston Setting bail is not a "ministerial act". A ministerial act is an act in which there is only one possible correct outcome and the judge has no discretion and isn't required to exercise any meaningful legal judgment. Setting bail is a classic example of a discretionary judicial act of a judge. It is not a ministerial act.

The Fed Judge will decide that but I appreciate your expert opinion.