immune for simply acting as an intermediary between the newspaper and the judge. See Forrester, 484 U.S. at 225,108 S.Ct. at 543 (indicating that the protections of judicial immunity extend to officials “who perform quasi-judicial functions”); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir.1996) (“[Defendant], while acting as Clerk of the United States District Court ... in many of his actions performed quasi-judicial functions .... Even if ... [defendant] deceived [plaintiff] regarding the status of the [supersedeas] bond and improperly conducted hearings to assess costs, all in coordination with Judge Brewster, such acts would fall within [defendant’s] quasi-judicial duties and are thus protected by absolute immunity.”); McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083, 1085 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755, 763
holding that all persons who are integral parts of the judicial process such as witnesses judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts holding that a prison physician who prepared an evaluation of an inmate pursuant to a judges request was functioning as an arm of the court and as such he was an integral part of the judicial process and is protected by the same absolute judicial immunity that protects judge connelly holding that absolute immunity protects  judges  so long as their acts are judicial  in nature internal quotation omitted