Farzana Sheikh, M.d. v. Medical Board of California; State of California

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17098
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA Circuit Judges.
Farzana Sheikh, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Telesaurus VPC, LLC v.
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-17098 2
Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sheikh’s procedural due process claim
because the process Sheikh was afforded, which included a full hearing before an
administrative law judge, and the California statutory scheme under which she was
afforded that process, provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of
due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner.’”(citation omitted)).
Sheikh’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the authority of
the magistrate judge, are unpersuasive.
We do not consider Sheikh’s arguments that were not raised before the
district court, including that the medical board proceedings violated the Eighth
Amendment and that she was improperly removed from her residency program.
See Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2004) (an appellate
court will not consider arguments not raised before the district court absent
exceptional circumstances).
The district court did not mention Sheikh’s petition for writ of review in the
order granting the motion to dismiss. We deem that the district court denied
supplemental jurisdiction over the petition for writ of review.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-17098 3
Sheikh’s motion for judicial notice over the Medical Board membership list
and Sheikh’s letter to the Medical Board is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --