This is the first I've seen of your question, because the userid in the question is missing the "r" at the end ("socratease", should be "socrateaser").
Anyway, it has long been established that judges, whether federal or state, enjoy absolute immunity from civil actions for damages challenging their judicial acts, "even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978)
By contrast, where it can be proved that the judge was acting outside of his/her judicial authority, the judge is subject to civil liability. See Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330, 336 (7th Cir.1979) ("[A]cts perpetrated outside of [judge's] courtroom and not then a part of his judicial functions were undertaken in the 'absence of all jurisdiction'" and thus subject to civil action). In Harris, the judge waged an out-of-court racially motivated campaign against an individual who successfully sued for the defamatory remarks.
So, the answer to your question is whether or not the judge was in the courtroom when the alleged wrongful acts occurred. If yes, then you have no case -- otherwise, you may have a case.
I hope I've answered your question. Please let me know if you require further clarification. And, please provide a positive feedback rating for my answer (click 3, 4 or 5 stars) -- otherwise, I receive nothing for my efforts in your behalf.
Thanks again for using Justanswer!