Summary
finding that Plaintiff's allegations that members of the Board illegally revoked his medical license and continue to "take" his medical license involve only actions closely related to the their roles in a quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial process
Summary of this case from Mir v. KirchmeyerOpinion
No. 08-35375.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 07, 2009.
Juan Esber Manzur, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Jill Carol Davis, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00603-JCM-GWF.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Juan Esber Manzur, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action challenging the revocation of his medical license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because absolute immunity bars Manzur's claims against the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners and its members. See Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners and its members "are functionally comparable to judges and prosecutors . . . [and] are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial acts").
Manzur's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.