defend its interest in the litigation. On appeal, the County also seeks a determination of its right to so appear in the lawsuit. However, we do not address that issue because: (1) the record is unclear as to whether, or on what grounds, the trial court ruled on it; (2) it is inadequately briefed on appeal; and (3) it is unnecessary to our disposition of the appeal. 7 . Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). 8 . However, judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity or to attorney’s fees for obtaining such relief. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 542-44, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984). 9 . Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12, 112 S.Ct. 286. 10 . Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13, 112 S.Ct. 286 (<HOLDING>); Forrester, 484 U.S. at 227, 108 S.Ct. 538
holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis holding that a judge merely acted in excess of his authority in ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing an attorney to his courtroom for a calendar call holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest