# Margaret Sprague v. The Medical Board of Californi

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 2, 2010 · 402 F. App'x 275

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/178641

## Case

- **Full name:** Margaret Melinda SPRAGUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA (MBC); Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 2, 2010
- **Citations:** 402 F. App'x 275
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** O'Scannlain, Leavy, Tallman
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/178641

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARET MELINDA SPRAGUE, No. 09-56136

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01561-JLS-LSP

v.
MEMORANDUM *
THE MEDICAL BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA (MBC); et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

*
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).
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 09-56136
Sprague’s motions seeking judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 09-56136

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/178641. Public record. Not legal advice.