Flattum v. State of California Department of Consumer Affairs

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Patti Bowers appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to dismiss on the ground of absolute immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo. Id. We reverse.

The district court erred in denying Bowers absolute immunity because Flattum alleges that Bowers signed and published a Statement of Issues containing statements Bowers knew or should have known were false, and Bowers is entitled to absolute immunity from damages with respect to these allegations. See Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Absolute immunity extends to agency officials when they .., initiate agency adjudication .... ”); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 11504 (“A hearing to determine whether a ... license ... should be granted ... shall be initiated by filing a statement of issues.”). To the extent Flattum asserts additional allegations against all defendants, he fails to allege facts as to Bowers sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient…