MEMORANDUM **

Margaret Melinda Sprague appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the revocation of her license to *276 practice medicine. We have jurisdiction under to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sprague’s claims seeking damages and retrospective equitable relief against the Medical Board of California and the individual defendants because her claims were barred by various doctrines of immunity. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (witnesses are “integral parts of the judicial process” and are shielded by immunity); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (“agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a ... judge” are immune from civil damages suits); Prod. & Leasing, Ltd. v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., 709 F.2d 21, 21-22 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to actions naming state agencies or state officials sued in their official capacity).

The district court properly dismissed Sprague’s claim seeking prospective equitable relief because the defendants could not effectuate the requested relief. See Demery v. Kuppeman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 1984).

We do not consider Sprague’s claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).

Sprague’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Sprague’s motions seeking judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.