Case Name: Wayne CHUNG, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara JOHNSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-06
Citations: 441 F. App'x 536
Docket Number: No. 09-17607
Parties: Wayne CHUNG, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara JOHNSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 536–537

Head Matter:
Wayne CHUNG, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara JOHNSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17607.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 6, 2011.
Wayne Chung, MD, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
Thomas A. Blake, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wayne Chung, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the suspension and probation of his medical license by the Medical Board of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to state a claim); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004) (immunity). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Chung's federal constitutional claims was proper on the basis of absolute immunity. See Olsen, 363 F.3d at 926 (state medical board members, professional staff, and counsel "function in a sufficiently judicial and prosecutorial capacity to entitle them to absolute immunity"); Paine v. City of Lompoc, 265 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2001) (witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity for them testimony in judicial proceedings).
To the extent that defendants' alleged conduct is not protected by absolute immunity, the district court properly dismissed Chung's action because Chung failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ("[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that does not violate a clearly-established constitutional right).
Chung's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider Chung's documents and facts that were not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. '