David J. Ogle v. Ralph A. Yates;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID J. OGLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RALPH A. YATES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35705
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00571-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
David J. Ogle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with
the revocation of his medical license. Ogle was given leave to amend, which he
refused to do. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the State of Oregon
and the Oregon Medical Board as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh
Amendment immunity applies to states and their agencies “regardless of the nature
of the relief sought”); Montana v. Goldin (In re Pegasus Gold Corp.), 394 F.3d
1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent waiver, state and its agencies are immune under
the Eleventh Amendment from private actions in federal court).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Judges Schuman,
Wollheim, and Nakamoto on the basis of judicial immunity. See Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those
performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for
acts performed in their official capacities.”).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Foote and Alexander
on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. See Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 837
(9th Cir. 1991) (government attorneys have absolute immunity from damages
liability for performing acts “intimately associated with the judicial phase” of
litigation).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the remaining
12-35705 2

-- 2 of 3 --

defendants because Ogle failed to allege facts demonstrating that these defendants
were personally involved in any constitutional violation or that there was a causal
connection between their conduct and any alleged violation. See Starr v. Baca,
652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory
liability); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and
conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not
sufficient to withstand dismissal).
AFFIRMED.
12-35705 3

-- 3 of 3 --