N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID J. OGLE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R ALPH A. YATES; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35705 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00571-B R M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s David J. Ogle a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l viola tions in c onne c tion with the re voc ation of his me dic a l lic e nse . Ogle wa s give n le ave to a

m e nd, whic h he re fuse d to do. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. 

# FIL ED MAY29 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Yok

e no v . Mafnas , 973 F.2d 803, 806 (9th C i r. 1992). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c l a im s a ga inst theState of Ore gon and the Ore gon M e dic a l B oa rd a s ba rre d by the Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt. Se e Pe nnhurst State

Sc h. & Hosp. v . Halde rman , 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Ele v e nth Am e ndm e nt im

m unity a p p lie s to sta

te s a nd the ir a ge nc ie s “ re g ardle ss of the nature of the re lie f sought” ); Montana v . Goldin (In re Pe gasus Gold C

orp.) , 394 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th C ir. 2005) (a bse nt wa ive r, sta

te and its a ge n c i e s a

re im m une unde r the E le ve nth Am e ndm e nt from priva te a c tions in fe d e ra l c ourt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c l a im s a ga inst Judge s Sc hum an, W ollhe im , a

nd Na kam oto on theba sis of judic ia l im m unity . Se e Ashe lman v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th C ir. 1986) (e n ba nc ) (“ Judge s a

nd those pe rform i ng judge -like func tions a re a bsolute ly im m une from dam a ge lia

b ility for a c ts pe rform e d in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c l a im s a ga inst Footean d Ale xa nde r on the ba sis of prose c utoria l im m unity . Se e Fry

v . Me laragno , 939 F.2d 832, 837 (9th C ir. 1991) (gove rnm e nt a ttorne y s ha

ve a b solute im

m unity from dam a ge s lia bility for pe rform ing a c ts “ intim ate ly a ssoc i ate d with thejudic ia l pha s e ” of litiga tion). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c l a im s a ga inst there m a ining 1 2 - 3 5 7 0 5

2de fe nda

n ts be c a use Ogle fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts de m onstra ting tha t the se de fe nda

nts we re pe rsona lly

involve d in a

ny c onstitutiona

l viola tion or tha

t the re wa s a

c a usa l c onne c tion be twe e n the ir c onduc t a nd a ny a lle g e d viola tion. Se e Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quire m e nts for e sta b lishing supervisory lia bility); Iv e

y v . Bd. of Re

ge nts , 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th C i r. 1982) (va gue and c onc lusory

a lle gations of offic ia l pa

rtic ipation in c ivil rights viola tions a re not suffic i e nt to withsta

nd dismissa l). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 5 7 0 5 3