Opinion ID: 591448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Members of the Board and Administrative Assistant Knutson

Text: 15 Dr. Zar has sued the individual members of the Board for allegedly violating Dr. Zar's federal due process rights in their decision to revoke his license taken in January of 1987. At that time, the defendants Rosemarie Reardon, W. Vail Williams, and Val Farmer were no longer members of the Board, and therefore, summary judgment was appropriate for them. 2 The remaining Board members argue that they are protected under either absolute or qualified immunity. The Board's Administrative Assistant, Knutson, argues that she is protected under qualified immunity. 16 Absolute immunity protects judges from liability for acts taken in the exercise of judicial functions. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508-09, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2911-12, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). The Supreme Court has held that persons subject to [the restraints in the Administrative Procedure Act] and performing adjudicatory functions within a federal agency are entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for their judicial acts. Id. at 514, 98 S.Ct. at 2915. The parties dispute whether absolute or qualified immunity applies to the South Dakota Board of Examiners of Psychologists. Although it appears likely that the Board is absolutely immune, see, e.g., Darnell v. Ford, 903 F.2d 556, 561 (8th Cir.1990); Kwoun v. Southeast Mo. Professional Standards Review Org., 811 F.2d 401, 407-08 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1994, 100 L.Ed.2d 226 (1988); Childs v. Reynoldson, 777 F.2d 1305, 1306 (8th Cir.1985), we need not decide that question because the Board and Knutson are immune under the standard of qualified immunity. 17 Qualified immunity precludes liability of an official for constitutional violations if the conduct  'was objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law.'  Powell v. Basham, 921 F.2d 165, 167 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting Darnell, 903 F.2d at 562). A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff is 'clearly established' at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all. Siegert v. Gilley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). 18 Dr. Zar contends that the Board's actions of failing to follow state administrative law were not protected by qualified immunity. Dr. Zar is correct that the Board failed to follow state administrative law. See Zar II, 434 N.W.2d 598. That assertion alone, however, is not sufficient to defeat the qualified immunity of the members of the Board and of Knutson. This issue was recently discussed in Bartlett v. Fisher, 972 F.2d 911 (8th Cir.1992). 19 In Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 [104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139] (1984), the Supreme Court reversed a damage award in favor of an employee of the Florida Highway Patrol who claimed that his discharge deprived him of his procedural due process. In sustaining the qualified immunity defense, the Court specifically held: 20 Officials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct violates some [state] statutory or administrative provision. 21 468 U.S. at 194 [104 S.Ct. at 3019]. Thus, defendant's alleged violations of [state] regulations are irrelevant to the qualified immunity question before us, except insofar as a violation might reflect a deprivation of procedural due process as defined by federal law. 22 Bartlett, 972 F.2d at 915 (citations omitted). Therefore, Dr. Zar's argument that the Board members and Knutson are not entitled to qualified immunity only prevails if their conduct was not objectively reasonable but was a violation of federal due process. 23 A deprivation by state action of a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty, or property is not a violation of federal procedural due process and is not actionable under § 1983 unless and until the State fails to provide due process. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 126, 110 S.Ct. 975, 983, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). A state provided post-deprivation remedy is sufficient when the deprivation was unpredictable, when a pre-deprivation process was impossible, and where the conduct of the state actors was unauthorized. Id. at 136-39, 110 S.Ct. at 989-91 (discussing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984)). In this case, the state had an appropriate statutory procedure that allowed a party to file briefs and present oral argument in a contested case when a majority of the agency decision-makers had not familiarized themselves with the record. See S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 1-26-24. Board Administrative Assistant Knutson failed to timely notify the Board of Dr. Zar's request to invoke that procedure, and the Board failed to implement the procedure. The failures by the Board and Knutson were unpredictable and unauthorized and therefore impossible to prevent. The immediate review and reversal of the Board's action provided an adequate state remedy. Because an adequate post-deprivation remedy existed, no actionable federal due process violation occurred. 24 Dr. Zar next argues that Knutson is not protected by qualified immunity for her request that the Board's attorney, Dorothy, inquire into Dr. Zar's status with the INS because that action was taken in retaliation against Dr. Zar for seeking a writ of prohibition in the state courts for the initial Board proceedings in 1983. A person's constitutional right of access to the courts cannot be impaired by threats or harassment in retaliation for filing lawsuits. Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n, 780 F.2d 1422, 1427-28 (8th Cir.1986). On the motion for summary judgment, however, Dr. Zar presented no evidence that the request was in retaliation for his legal activities other than an inference from the fact that the request was made at a point in time after Dr. Zar sought relief in the state courts in 1983. The inquiry to the INS, however, was in 1986, after the state supreme court found in the Board's favor in Zar I, 376 N.W.2d 54 (S.D.1985). Knutson's request did not violate any constitutional right of Dr. Zar. Summary judgment on these claims against the Board members and Knutson was appropriate.2. Wald, Eichstadt, and Dorothy 25 Assistant Attorneys General Wald and Eichstadt, and Board Attorney Dorothy each claim absolute immunity for their prosecutorial roles. An official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question. Burns v. Reed, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (citation omitted). [P]rosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct in 'initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case' insofar as that conduct is 'intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.'  Id. (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)). This immunity applies even to an agency attorney performing the same prosecutorial function within the administrative hearing process. Butz, 438 U.S. at 516-17, 98 S.Ct. at 2915-16. 26 Wald's actions of filing criminal charges against Dr. Zar, amending the criminal complaint, and filing a motion for reconsideration of the decision to change venue are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and are afforded absolute immunity. Dr. Zar also asserts, however, that Wald is liable under § 1983 for her actions in investigating him. The Supreme Court has expressly reserved the question of whether a prosecutor's role as an investigator rather than as an advocate falls within absolute immunity or qualified immunity. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-31, 96 S.Ct. at 994-95. This court has stated that: 27 while some of a prosecuting attorney's preliminary investigative work may be analogous to a police detective's investigation, and should therefore be only qualifiedly immune, investigation necessary to the prosecutor's decision to initiate criminal proceedings is within the quasi-judicial aspect of the prosecutor's job and therefore is absolutely immune from a civil suit for money damages. 28 Williams v. Hartje, 827 F.2d 1203, 1210 (8th Cir.1987) (citation omitted). The investigation by Wald was initiated only after the MFCU had received complaints regarding Dr. Zar's Medicaid billings from the Office of Inspector General in Denver, Colorado. The investigation of Dr. Zar pertained to his Medicaid billings. We find that the investigation that was performed by Wald was essential to the ensuing decision whether to prosecute, see id., and therefore, she is entitled to absolute immunity. 29 Dorothy's actions of presenting evidence at the administrative hearings, of filing and amending the notice of formal action, and of pursuing the appeal of the reversal of the Board's decision are also protected by absolute immunity. See Butz, 438 U.S. at 516-17, 98 S.Ct. at 2915-16. Dorothy's advice to the new Board members that they need not familiarize themselves with the specifics of Zar's case before voting is subject, if at all, only to qualified immunity. See Burns, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1942-45 (prosecutor who gave legal advice to police in their investigation was only entitled to qualified immunity). However, as discussed above with respect to the Board, Dorothy's actions are protected by qualified immunity because the state's adequate post-deprivation remedy precludes any actionable federal due process claim. 30 Finally, Dr. Zar argues that Eichstadt and Dorothy's actions in contacting the INS and the county attorney are actionable under § 1983. Although Eichstadt and Dorothy's contacts with the INS and the county attorney were within the scope of their duties, the conduct is not sufficiently integral to the judicial process to warrant absolute immunity. Dr. Zar argues that their contacts were in retaliation against him for seeking a writ of prohibition in the state courts for the initial Board proceedings. 3 As discussed above with respect to Knutson, Dr. Zar presented no evidence that the contacts were made in retaliation for his legal activities other than the fact that the contacts were made at a point in time after Dr. Zar sought relief in the state courts. The undisputed evidence only indicates that the contact with the INS was made at the request of Knutson in 1986 after the state supreme court rendered a decision favorable to the Board. Eichstadt and Dorothy are entitled to qualified immunity for their contacts with the INS and the county attorney because such conduct did not violate any constitutional right of Dr. Zar and was objectively reasonable. We agree with the district court's grant of summary judgment on these claims.