involved in an official transaction at the time the judge asked her to lend her interpretive services in court and when she repeatedly failed to obey the judge’s order to return to the courtroom to provide those services. See N.M. R. Mag-is. Ct. RCP Rule 2-110(A)(2). Finally, while Ms. Giron argues the judge erred by failing to hold a contempt hearing, we have previously held judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity even if “flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.” Whitesel, 222 F.3d at 867 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, the procedural error does not alter the nature of the act from being a judicial one over which the judge had jurisdiction, and therefore, it was not taken “in complete absence of all jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Figueroa, 208 F.3d at 443 (<HOLDING>); O’Neil v. City of Lake Oswego, 642 F.2d 367,
recognizing that absolute judicial immunity is not grounded in any special esteem for those who perform judicial functions and certainly not from a desire to shield abuses of office but because any lesser degree of immunity could impair the judicial process itself holding order of contempt sentence without statutory opportunity for appeal was in error but nevertheless involved a judicial act subject to judicial immunity holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction