Margaret Melinda Sprague v. the Medical Board of California (mbc);

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARGARET MELINDA SPRAGUE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE MEDICAL BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA (MBC); et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56136
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01561-JLS-LSP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Margaret Melinda Sprague appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the revocation of her license
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-56136 2
to practice medicine. We have jurisdiction under to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sprague’s claims seeking damages and
retrospective equitable relief against the Medical Board of California and the
individual defendants because her claims were barred by various doctrines of
immunity. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983) (witnesses are
“integral parts of the judicial process” and are shielded by immunity); Olsen v.
Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (“agency
representatives performing functions analogous to those of a . . . judge” are
immune from civil damages suits); Prod. & Leasing, Ltd. v. Hotel Conquistador,
Inc., 709 F.2d 21, 21-22 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment
immunity applies to actions naming state agencies or state officials sued in their
official capacity).
The district court properly dismissed Sprague’s claim seeking prospective
equitable relief because the defendants could not effectuate the requested relief.
See Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 1984).
We do not consider Sprague’s claims raised for the first time on appeal. See
Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).
Sprague’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-56136 3
Sprague’s motions seeking judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --