Chung v. Johnston, 070611 FED9, 09-17607

Docket Nº:09-17607
Party Name:WAYNE CHUNG, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BARBARA JOHNSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 06, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

WAYNE CHUNG, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BARBARA JOHNSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17607

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 6, 2011

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 15, 2011 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:09-cv-02615-MHP for the Northern District of California Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

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 their 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP