exercise of his independent judgment as to whether to initiate charges against Mishler is entitled to the protection of absolute immunity. IV. CONCLUSION The Board Members are entitled to absolute immunity for the acts that they perform which are closely associated with the judicial process. However, absolute immunity does not apply to the act of responding to the Ohio Board’s verification inquiry. If Mishler had alleged only acts that are entitled to absolute immunity, dismissal of his complaint would have been an appropriate course of action. However, as it stands, Mishler’s seven claims are based on all of the alleged actions taken by the Board Members, some of which are protected by absolute immunity and some of which are not. Because a co am’rs, 990 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>) (unpublished disposition) ("Mishler II ”);
holding that the verification of mishlers medical license was part of the protected property interest in the license and reversing the district courts dismissal of his complaint recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding that board members would not be entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to respond to the ohio board inquiry because it was a ministerial act and reversing the district courts dismissal of mishlers complaint recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing holding that mishler could amend his complaint because the board had been put on notice that the integrity of its administrative proceedings was at issue and reversing the district courts grant of summary judgment for the board members because no reasonable state official could reasonably believe that malicious deprivation of license verification was lawful