OPINION

Yvette Madison appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her complaint. For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

In May 2014, Madison filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court against Philadelphia Municipal Court Judges Marsha Neifield and David Shuter, and the Criminal Justice Center (where the criminal division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court is located). She contended that Judges Neifield and Shuter discriminated against her in August 2010 when they ordered her arrest following her failure to appear for a scheduled court date. Madison asserted that she did not, in fact, fail to appear for a scheduled court date. Madison requested two million dollars in damages. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, citing the immunity of all defendants from Madison’s § 1983 claims. Additionally, the District Court determined that Madison’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Madison timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

The District Court properly dismissed Madison’s complaint. To the extent that Madison sought to bring claims for monetary damages against Judges Neifeild and Shuter because they ordered her arrest following her failure to appear for a court date, they are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Nowhere did Madison allege that they were acting in a nonjudicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction when they engaged in the alleged misconduct. See Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 443-44 (3d Cir. 2000) (ordering a defendant to prison is a paradigm judicial act). Madison’s apparent claim against the Philadelphia Municipal Court is also ineffective because the Eleventh Amendment shields it from liability to suits brought in federal court. 1 See Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 235 n. 1, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). Fi *97 nally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Madison leave to amend her complaint on the basis of futility. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434-35 (3d Cir. 1997). 2

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.