1385, 1389 (9th Cir.1987). In this case, the Governor’s review of Miller’s parole decision was not “clearly and completely outside the scope of [his] jurisdiction.” Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir.1986). Although Article V, § 8(b) and Penal Code § 1304.2 on their face refer only to persons convicted of “murder,” it was not clear, at least before the California court clarified the scope of these provisions, that the term “murder” did not encompass conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy to commit murder is certainly closely related to the substantive off role grant, based on his erroneous reading of Article V, § 8(b), was in excess of his authority, it was not an act done in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Cf. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Governor Davis is entitled to
holding that a judge who misinterpreted a statute and erroneously exercised jurisdiction did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction holding that a judge who convicted defendant for contempt an act within the courts jurisdiction but without the affidavit required by statute to confer jurisdiction over the offense charged was still entitled to immunity his act was merely in excess of his jurisdiction holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction holding that a judge did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction where he had colorable authority to take the action in question holding that the jones act does not encroach on the admiralty jurisdiction intended by the constitution but permits that jurisdiction to be invoked and exercised as it has been from the beginning