Eric Dover v. Kathleen Haley, Jd

616 F. App'x 295
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 8, 2015
Docket13-36183
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 616 F. App'x 295 (Eric Dover v. Kathleen Haley, Jd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eric Dover v. Kathleen Haley, Jd, 616 F. App'x 295 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled Case
D. Oregon, 2026
Thomas v. Harder
D. Oregon, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
616 F. App'x 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-dover-v-kathleen-haley-jd-ca9-2015.