Walker

MEMORANDUM **

Dr. Judith Walker appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights action against the California Medical Board (“the Board”) and ten individuals who were involved in professional disciplinary proceedings against her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Dr. Walker contends that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing her claims against the individual defendants under Fed.R.CivP. 4(m) for failure to effect service of process. She argues that serving the complaint and the summons on the California Attorney General satisfied the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) because state law requires service of process on, and representation by, the Attorney General in all actions against the state and state officials. We disagree. State law does not authorize the Attorney General to accept service of process on behalf of defendants sued in their individual capacities. See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347-48 (9th Cir.1982) (service upon public entity insufficient to subject state officials to suit in their individual capacities).

Accordingly, because the Attorney General is not an agent authorized by appointment or…