1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 HANNA Q. RHEE, No. 2:18-CV-0105-KJM-DMC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17
18 19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local 21 rules. On July 13, 2018, the previously assigned magistrate judge filed findings and 22 recommendations addressing defendants’ motions to dismiss, which were served on the parties 23 and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. 24 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 37, and the 25 hospital defendants filed a request for clarification, ECF No. 36. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 27 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court 28 finds the findings and recommendations regarding state defendant immunities to be generally 1 supported by the record and by proper analysis and those findings and recommendations thus will 2 be adopted, with the exceptions and clarifications described below. The court declines to adopt 3 the balance of the findings and recommendations. The court remands the matter back to the 4 magistrate judge to resolve the motion for clarification and to issue supplemental findings and 5 recommendations on the state defendants’ motion to dismiss and new findings and 6 recommendations on the hospital defendants’ motion consistent with this order. 7 I. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY 8 The magistrate judge is correct that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a 9 state agency, which bars plaintiff’s claims against the Medical Board of California. Findings at 4 10 (citing Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)); Sprague v. Med. Bd. of California 11 (MBC), 402 F. App’x 275, 276 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Prod. & Leasing, Ltd. v. Hotel 12 Conquistador, Inc., 709 F.2d 21, 21–22 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment 13 immunity applies to actions naming state agencies or state officials sued in their official 14 capacity)). Additionally, the magistrate judge is correct that Eleventh Immunity does not bar 15 plaintiff from seeking prospective injunctive relief or proceeding on declaratory relief claims 16 against state officials sued in their official capacities. Findings at 4 (citing Armstrong v. Wilson, 17 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997)). However, plaintiff’s complaint also includes a request for 18 money damages. Compl., ECF No.1, at 15 (“Dollar amount to be determined by jury.”). To the 19 extent the state defendants are sued in their official capacity for damages, plaintiff’s claims for 20 damages must be dismissed. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102– 21 103 (1984). 22 II. QUASI- JUDICIAL AND/OR PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY 23 The magistrate judge is also correct that the Medical Board of California and its 24 officers and attorneys representing the Medical Board are entitled to quasi-judicial or 25 prosecutorial immunity. Findings at 5. “Under certain circumstances, absolute immunity is also 26 extended to agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a prosecutor or a 27 judge.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine 28 ///// 1 whether absolute immunity should be extended, courts analyze six nonexclusive factors originally 2 articulated in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512–13 (1978): 3 (1) the need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (2) the presence of safeguards 4 that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; (3) insulation from political 5 influence; (4) the importance of precedent; (5) the adversary nature of the process; and (6) the correctability of error on appeal. 6 7 Mir v. Deck, No. SACV 12-1629-RGK SH, 2013 WL 4857673, at *15 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8 11, 2013) (citing Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 202 (1985)), aff’d, 676 F. App’x 707 (9th 9 Cir. 2017). Ninth Circuit courts have concluded that officers of state medical boards are entitled 10 to absolute immunity for quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial acts based on these factors. See 11 Olsen, 363 F.3d at 925–26; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 1999); Gambee v. 12 Williams, 971 F. Supp. 474, 477 (D. Or. 1997); see also Mir, 2013 WL 4857673, at *12–15. 13 Here, the claims against defendants MBOC, Kirchmeyer (Director of MBOC)1 and Bholat 14 (MBOC member), Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10, are for their alleged actions in connection with the Medical 15 Board’s administrative proceeding against plaintiff. See Compl. at 10–11 (allegations against 16 “Defendant MBOC” and “Defendant MBOC Board member Michelle Anne Bholat MD”). Thus, 17 they were “agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a . . . judge” at the 18 time of the alleged conduct and are entitled to immunity. Olsen, 363 F.3d at 925–26 (holding 19 members of Idaho Medical Board “function in a sufficiently judicial or prosecutorial capacity” to 20 be entitled to immunity); see also Mir, 2013 WL 4857673, at *15 (finding members of Medical 21 Board involved in administrative proceeding against plaintiff entitled to absolute immunity for 22 their “quasi-judicial functions performed in connection with the hearing”). The claims against 23 defendants Medical Board of California, Kirchmeyer, and Bholat are therefore DISMISSED with 24 prejudice on the basis of immunity. 25 ///// 26
27 1 Defendant Kirchmeyer is not referenced by name in plaintiff’s statement of specific facts in the complaint, the court construes the allegations against “Defendant MBOC” as also against 28 MBOC’s Director, Kirchmeyer. 1 Moreover, the state attorneys representing the Medical Board are “immune from 2 lawsuits for any action[s] [they] commit[] in discharging [their] litigation-related duties,” 3 Yoonessi v. Albany Med. Ctr., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (referring to attorneys 4 in the Attorney General’s Office) (citing Bly–Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 5 2001)). Accordingly, defendant O’Carroll is entitled to immunity, as the claims against her arise 6 out of their litigation-related duties in connection with the MBOC investigation. See Compl. at 7 10–12; State Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 12-1, at 14. Though the claims against defendant 8 Alvarez are unclear, it appears she is named in the complaint, because she is O’Carroll’s 9 supervisor. Compl. ¶ 17a (“Alexandra M. Alvarez Esq is a Supervising Deputy Attorney General 10 in the State of California overseeing Defendant Megan O’Carroll Esq.”). Accordingly, the same 11 rationale appears to apply to Alvarez.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 HANNA Q. RHEE, No. 2:18-CV-0105-KJM-DMC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17
18 19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local 21 rules. On July 13, 2018, the previously assigned magistrate judge filed findings and 22 recommendations addressing defendants’ motions to dismiss, which were served on the parties 23 and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. 24 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 37, and the 25 hospital defendants filed a request for clarification, ECF No. 36. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 27 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court 28 finds the findings and recommendations regarding state defendant immunities to be generally 1 supported by the record and by proper analysis and those findings and recommendations thus will 2 be adopted, with the exceptions and clarifications described below. The court declines to adopt 3 the balance of the findings and recommendations. The court remands the matter back to the 4 magistrate judge to resolve the motion for clarification and to issue supplemental findings and 5 recommendations on the state defendants’ motion to dismiss and new findings and 6 recommendations on the hospital defendants’ motion consistent with this order. 7 I. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY 8 The magistrate judge is correct that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a 9 state agency, which bars plaintiff’s claims against the Medical Board of California. Findings at 4 10 (citing Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)); Sprague v. Med. Bd. of California 11 (MBC), 402 F. App’x 275, 276 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Prod. & Leasing, Ltd. v. Hotel 12 Conquistador, Inc., 709 F.2d 21, 21–22 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment 13 immunity applies to actions naming state agencies or state officials sued in their official 14 capacity)). Additionally, the magistrate judge is correct that Eleventh Immunity does not bar 15 plaintiff from seeking prospective injunctive relief or proceeding on declaratory relief claims 16 against state officials sued in their official capacities. Findings at 4 (citing Armstrong v. Wilson, 17 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997)). However, plaintiff’s complaint also includes a request for 18 money damages. Compl., ECF No.1, at 15 (“Dollar amount to be determined by jury.”). To the 19 extent the state defendants are sued in their official capacity for damages, plaintiff’s claims for 20 damages must be dismissed. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102– 21 103 (1984). 22 II. QUASI- JUDICIAL AND/OR PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY 23 The magistrate judge is also correct that the Medical Board of California and its 24 officers and attorneys representing the Medical Board are entitled to quasi-judicial or 25 prosecutorial immunity. Findings at 5. “Under certain circumstances, absolute immunity is also 26 extended to agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a prosecutor or a 27 judge.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine 28 ///// 1 whether absolute immunity should be extended, courts analyze six nonexclusive factors originally 2 articulated in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512–13 (1978): 3 (1) the need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (2) the presence of safeguards 4 that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; (3) insulation from political 5 influence; (4) the importance of precedent; (5) the adversary nature of the process; and (6) the correctability of error on appeal. 6 7 Mir v. Deck, No. SACV 12-1629-RGK SH, 2013 WL 4857673, at *15 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8 11, 2013) (citing Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 202 (1985)), aff’d, 676 F. App’x 707 (9th 9 Cir. 2017). Ninth Circuit courts have concluded that officers of state medical boards are entitled 10 to absolute immunity for quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial acts based on these factors. See 11 Olsen, 363 F.3d at 925–26; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 1999); Gambee v. 12 Williams, 971 F. Supp. 474, 477 (D. Or. 1997); see also Mir, 2013 WL 4857673, at *12–15. 13 Here, the claims against defendants MBOC, Kirchmeyer (Director of MBOC)1 and Bholat 14 (MBOC member), Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10, are for their alleged actions in connection with the Medical 15 Board’s administrative proceeding against plaintiff. See Compl. at 10–11 (allegations against 16 “Defendant MBOC” and “Defendant MBOC Board member Michelle Anne Bholat MD”). Thus, 17 they were “agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a . . . judge” at the 18 time of the alleged conduct and are entitled to immunity. Olsen, 363 F.3d at 925–26 (holding 19 members of Idaho Medical Board “function in a sufficiently judicial or prosecutorial capacity” to 20 be entitled to immunity); see also Mir, 2013 WL 4857673, at *15 (finding members of Medical 21 Board involved in administrative proceeding against plaintiff entitled to absolute immunity for 22 their “quasi-judicial functions performed in connection with the hearing”). The claims against 23 defendants Medical Board of California, Kirchmeyer, and Bholat are therefore DISMISSED with 24 prejudice on the basis of immunity. 25 ///// 26
27 1 Defendant Kirchmeyer is not referenced by name in plaintiff’s statement of specific facts in the complaint, the court construes the allegations against “Defendant MBOC” as also against 28 MBOC’s Director, Kirchmeyer. 1 Moreover, the state attorneys representing the Medical Board are “immune from 2 lawsuits for any action[s] [they] commit[] in discharging [their] litigation-related duties,” 3 Yoonessi v. Albany Med. Ctr., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (referring to attorneys 4 in the Attorney General’s Office) (citing Bly–Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 5 2001)). Accordingly, defendant O’Carroll is entitled to immunity, as the claims against her arise 6 out of their litigation-related duties in connection with the MBOC investigation. See Compl. at 7 10–12; State Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 12-1, at 14. Though the claims against defendant 8 Alvarez are unclear, it appears she is named in the complaint, because she is O’Carroll’s 9 supervisor. Compl. ¶ 17a (“Alexandra M. Alvarez Esq is a Supervising Deputy Attorney General 10 in the State of California overseeing Defendant Megan O’Carroll Esq.”). Accordingly, the same 11 rationale appears to apply to Alvarez. Finally, although plaintiff’s claim against defendant 12 Attorney General Becerra is also not entirely clear as pled, to the extent the claim is based on his 13 actions in supervising the other named deputy attorneys general, he is entitled to immunity for the 14 same reasons. Therefore, the claims against O’Carroll are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the 15 claims against Alvarez and Becerra are DISMISSED but with leave to amend if possible subject 16 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 17 III. YOUNGER ABSTENTION 18 The magistrate judge recommends the court dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims against 19 all of the defendants under the doctrine of Younger abstention. Findings at 3–4. However, the 20 magistrate judge did not analyze the exception to the Younger doctrine for proceedings 21 undertaken in bad faith or for harassment, which appears to be at the heart of plaintiff’s claim in 22 this case. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971); Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 23 18 at 5–8. The magistrate judge also did not include an analysis of how Younger abstention 24 affects plaintiffs’ claims against the hospital defendants. 25 Accordingly, the matter will be referred back to the magistrate judge to address 26 these and any other remaining issues. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2018, are adopted in part 3 and rejected in part as explained above. 4 2. The state defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is resolved as follows: 5 a. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Medical Board of California, 6 Kirchmeyer, Bholat, and O’Carroll are DISMISSED with 7 prejudice; 8 b. Plaintiff’s claims for damages against defendants Alvarez and 9 Attorney General Becerra are DISMISSED with prejudice, while 10 her claims for prospective and injunctive relief against Alvarez and 11 Attorney General Becerra are DISMISSED without prejudice; and 12 c. The portion of the motion arguing Younger abstention should apply 13 is referred back to the magistrate judge for the preparation of 14 supplemental findings and recommendations. 15 3. The hospital defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is referred back 16 to the magistrate judge for the preparation of new findings and 17 recommendations taking into account the contents of this order and 18 defendants’ request for clarification, ECF No. 36. 19 DATED: August 27, 2019. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28