SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Anthony J. Ceparano appeals a judgment of the district court granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining that Ceparano's claims against a Southampton Justice Court judge and court clerk were barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Ceparano also appeals from the district court's denial of his motions to strike pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), to amend the amount of damages requested, and for Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) sanctions. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Even assuming that the district court erred in dismissing Ceparano's claims against the Southampton Justice Court judge and court clerk in their individual capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that this error was harmless because Ceparano's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A court faced with a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed 929 (2007). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

"A judge defending against a section 1983 suit is entitled to absolute immunity from damages for actions performed in his judicial capacity." Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1119 (2d Cir. 1990). Whether a judge acted in a "judicial capacity" depends on the "nature of the act [complained of] itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and [on] the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Further, if the judge is performing in his judicial capacity, the "judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099; see also Fields, 920 F.2d at 1119 ("Liability will not attach where a judge violated state law by an incorrect decision."). In this analysis, "the scope of the judge's jurisdiction [is] to be construed broadly," Maestri v. Jutkofsky, 860 F.2d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 1988) (alteration omitted) (quoting Stump, 435 U.S. at 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099) (internal quotation marks omitted), and the asserted immunity will only be overcome when the "judge clearly lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter," id. at 52.

Moreover, court clerks have been granted similar immunity from damages "for performance of tasks which are judicial in nature and an integral part of the judicial process." Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 1997). Therefore, "[e]ven "when functions that are more administrative in character have been undertaken pursuant to the explicit direction of a judicial officer, . . . that officer's immunity is also available to the subordinate.'" Id. at 67 (omission in original) (quoting Kincaid v. Vail, 969 F.2d 594, 601 (7th Cir. 1992)).

The authorizing of Ceparano's bench warrant was clearly a judicial act that entitles the Southampton Justice Court judge to absolute immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (ordering court officers to bring an individual before the court is a judicial act); see also N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 530.70(1) (authorizing local courts to issue bench warrants); cf. Burns v. Reed 500 U.S. 478, 492, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) ("[T]he issuance of a search warrant is unquestionably a judicial act"). The fact that the bench warrant may have been erroneously issued before Ceparano's fine was due does not render the judge's authorization of that warrant a nonjudicial action because "[i]f judicial immunity means anything, it means that a judge 'will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error . . . or was in excess of his authority.'" Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12-13, 112 S.Ct. 286 (omission in original) (quoting Stump, 435 U.S. at 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099). Further, even assuming, as Ceparano argues, that the judge did not possess proper personal jurisdiction over him when the bench warrant was issued, the judge did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction necessary to deprive the judge of immunity because local criminal courts in New York possess subject matter jurisdiction over the misdemeanor to which Ceparano pled guilty in the Southampton Justice Court. See Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013, 1017 (2d Cir. 1983) (Although trial judge may have lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant after his sentencing, "it is apparent that a judge who possesses subject matter jurisdiction is not within the `clear absence of all jurisdiction' posture which would deprive him of the use of the defense of judicial immunity."); N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law §§ 10.30(1)-(2) (local criminal courts possess jurisdiction over all offenses other than felonies).

Additionally, because the authorizing of a bench warrant is a judicial function, the court clerk is also entitled to absolute immunity for issuing the warrant. See Rodriguez, 116 F.3d at 67 ("It is `the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it,' that determines whether an individual is entitled to immunity." (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988))).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment with regard to Ceparano's § 1983 claims. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ceparano's motion for Rule 11 sanctions and properly denied Ceparano's motions to strike, to amend his damages, and for judgment on the pleadings.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.