183, 185-87, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980). The judge, though immune from private suit, is not immune from criminal prosecution by a state or federal agency. See Dennis, 449 U.S. at 27-31, 101 S.Ct. at 186-88. Applying the rule here, the trial judge below — and the court-appointed psychiatrists who proved that they were functioning as an arm of the court — are immune from private prosecution by a private citizen. However, if they violated a criminal law, they are not immune from criminal prosecution by the government. Some cases using the functional approach have held that certain administrative functions of judges are not part of the judicial function and therefore are outside the scope of judicial immunity. See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) (<HOLDING>). However, the case before us today does not
holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him holding judge not able to invoke judicial immunity in  1983 damages action against him for employment decision made in the exercise of his administrative functions holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury