Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eric A. DOVER, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katheen HALEY, JD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-36183.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 8, 2015.
    Eric A. Dover, MD, Lake Oswego, OR, pro se.
    Carolyn Alexander, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eric A. Dover, MD, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when state officials revoked his medical license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on absolute immunity, Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Administrative Law Judge Barber on the basis of judicial immunity. See Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186-87 (9th Cir.1999) (state officials presiding over hearings entitled to absolute immunity).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Kroger and Foote on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. See Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir.1991) (attorneys representing the government in litigation entitled to absolute immunity).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants because the alleged constitutional violations arose from the performance of functions that “are inherently judicial in nature,” Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir.1999) (absolute immunity applies to those" engaged in state medical board disciplinary proceeding when they perform actions that “are judicial or closely associated with the judicial process”), and Dover failed to allege facts sufficient to show any constitutional violations arising from the performance of “ministerial” acts, Olsen, 363 F.3d at 929 (absolute immunity does not extend to ministerial acts).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.