if it: (1) “legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment,” (2) “upon an identifiable individual,” and (3) “without provision of the protections of a judicial trial”). The enabling act establishing the Board and its duties does not meet these criteria. 2. The district court properly dismissed Read’s claims against Administrative Law Judge Gutman on the basis of judicial immunity. Read failed to a the Oregon Medical Board was not error. The district court properly applied Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), and Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 1999), in determining that the Board members’ functions were sufficiently analogous to those of a judge or prosecutor. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1009
recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding that members of idaho state board of medicine their staff and their counsel were entitled to absolute immunity under butz and mishler holding that the nevada state board of medical examiners and its members are functionally comparable to judges and prosecutors  and are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasijudicial acts holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing