Medley was without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the motions. And since he was a judge of a court of general jurisdiction, neither Judge Medley’s commission of error in granting the motions that led to the two disputed orders, nor the apparent lack of a statute authorizing Judge Medley’s approval of the motions leading to the orders, rendered his actions in “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Therefore, the district court here was correct to find this aspect of the quasi-judicial immunity analysis satisfied. 2. The Court Orders’ Facial Validity A key requirement that we have found necessary to the application of quasi-judicial immunity where government officials are executing court orders is the requirement that the order be “facially valid.” See Turney, 898 F.2d at 1472 (<HOLDING>). Howev er, we have acknowledged that even
holding that prison officials charged with executing facially valid court orders enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 liability for conduct prescribed by those orders holding that federal executive officials in general are not privileged with absolute immunity holding that officials charged with the duty of executing a facially valid court order enjoy absolute immunity holding that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution holding that social workers enjoy absolute quasijudicial immunity when making postadjudication custody decisions pursuant to a valid court order  quotation omitted