Center that Mishler’s hospital privileges had been terminated. Dr. Clift’s statements, made upon his information and belief, as a part of the disciplinary complaint — which was forwarded to the Board Members for their determination of whether to proceed with a disciplinary hearing — is the equivalent of a prosecutor’s initiation of charges. Cf. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 250-51 (4th Cir.1999) (“[A] physician requested by the Board to conduct a peer review performs a function analogous to a prosecutor reviewing evidence to determine whether charges should be brought.”). The mere use of the terms “under penalty of perjury” in the disciplinary complaint does not turn Dr. Clift into a complaining witness. Dr. er v. Nevada State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 94 F.3d 652 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (unpublished disposition) {“Mishler III ”). 3
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 the general rule which permits judicial notice of a courts prior cases to support a motion for summary judgment but reversing because in his order the trial judge made no specific reference to the basis for his grant of summary judgment 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 holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the board had erred in finding that certain picketing was lawful because no party had raised the issue to the board either during the initial proceedings or on motion for reconsideration 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