has made obvious errors of law. See VanSkiver, 952 F.2d at 1244. We therefore examine whether any obvious errors of law exist in the district court’s analysis. The district court first dismissed the claims against the state court defendant judges with prejudice based on absolute immunity. “It is well settled that judges have absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts committed within the apparent scope of their judicial duties.” Wiggins v. N.M. State Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir.1981) (citations omitted). In this case there is no allegation that the judges acted outside of the apparent scope of their judicial duties. Mere claims that the judges misapplied New Mexico sentencing law do not suffice. See Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the district court was correct in
recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983 holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony holding that state judges are absolutely immune from  1983 liability except when acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction