Court Opinion

ID: 9897377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:49.188445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:27.529417
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         Jun 08 2023, 10:21 am

                                                                                CLERK
                                                                          Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                             Court of Appeals
                                                                               and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS                                   ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita                                         David F. McNamar
Attorney General of Indiana                                McNamar & Associates, P.C.
                                                           Westfield, Indiana
Benjamin M.L. Jones
Section Chief, Civil Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE

    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Indiana Board of Pharmacy,                                 June 8, 2023
Donna S. Wall, Steven                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
Anderson, Del Fanning, Winnie                              22A-PL-1811
Landis, Mark Smosma, and Matt                              Appeal from the Marion Superior
Balla,                                                     Court
Appellants-Respondents/Defendants,                         The Hon. Patrick J. Dietrick,
                                                           Judge
        v.                                                 Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           49D12-2001-PL-104
Paul J. Elmer,
Appellee-Petitioner/Plaintiff.

                         Opinion on Rehearing by Judge Bradford
                              Judges Robb and Pyle concur.

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-PL-1811 | June 8, 2023                     Page 1 of 4
[1]   On January 2, 2020, after the Indiana Board of Pharmacy (“the Board”)

      revoked Paul Elmer’s expired pharmacist’s license, he brought suit against it

      and its members (collectively, “Appellants”), alleging that the Board had lacked

      the statutory authority to revoke an already-expired license and that Appellants

      had violated his fundamental rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section

      1983”). On January 31, 2020, the trial court granted the parties’ joint motion to

      bifurcate the state-law claim from the federal claim. See Ind. Bd. of Pharm. v.

      Elmer, 171 N.E.3d 1045, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. Elmer’s

      judicial-review action was resolved in his favor. See id. at 1052. Thereafter, the

      Section 1983 claim proceeded, with the trial court eventually entering judgment

      in Elmer’s favor and awarding him attorney’s fees. Appellants appealed, and,

      on March 30, 2023, we issued our original opinion, in which we reversed and

      remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Appellants and to

      vacate the award of attorney’s fees to Elmer. Today, we grant Elmer’s petition

      for rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that his claims made pursuant

      to Section 1983 against the Board members in their official capacities (as

      opposed to their individual capacities) are encompassed by our original

      disposition.

[2]   In our original opinion, we concluded, inter alia, that the Board members

      enjoyed absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a Section 1983 suit in their

      individual capacities; Elmer, however, is correct that this immunity does not

      extend to them in their official capacities, in which he also sued them. See, e.g.,

      Melton v. Ind. Athletic Trainers Bd., 156 N.E.3d 633, 651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020)

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-PL-1811 | June 8, 2023   Page 2 of 4
      (“[I]mmunity defenses are not available to officials sued in their official

      capacities[.]”), trans. denied. Under certain circumstances, a plaintiff may obtain

      prospective relief from state officials acting in their official capacities. See Ross

      v. Ind. State Bd. of Nursing, 790 N.E.2d 110, 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (noting

      that, pursuant to Section 1983, “a state official cannot be sued in his official

      capacity for retrospective relief but can be sued for prospective relief”) (emphasis

      added). A plaintiff bringing an official-capacity suit against state officials,

      however, must allege an ongoing violation of federal law. See Melton, 156

      N.E.3d at 651. This Elmer cannot do. When Elmer’s judicial-review claim

      terminated in his favor,1 he was no longer able to state a claim pursuant to

      Section 1983 because any violation of federal law that might have occurred

      ceased when Elmer won his judicial-review action, i.e., the illegal “revocation”

      of his expired license was over. This inability to allege an ongoing violation of

      federal law fatally undercut Elmer’s Section 1983 claim against the Board

      members in their official capacities.

[3]   For the same reason, prospective relief can no longer be given to Elmer, also

      serving to render his claim moot. A request for injunctive relief is moot when

      no relief is possible or if the relief sought has already occurred. See, e.g., Medley

      v. Lemmon, 994 N.E.2d 1177, 1183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (request for injunctive

      relief regarding visitation restrictions became moot when those restrictions

      1
        See Ind. Bd. of Pharm. v. Elmer, 171 N.E.3d 1045, 1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“We conclude that the
      applicable statutes do not authorize the Board to revoke an expired, invalid license.”), trans. denied.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-PL-1811 | June 8, 2023                        Page 3 of 4
      expired), trans. denied. The resolution of Elmer’s judicial-review claim in his

      favor gave him all the relief to which he was entitled.

[4]   Because any violation of Elmer’s fundamental rights that may have occurred

      ceased when he prevailed in the judicial-review action, his Section 1983 claim

      against the Board members in their official capacities became untenable and

      moot.2 The trial court therefore erred in entering judgment in favor of Elmer on

      his Section 1983 claim against the Board members in their official capacities.

      Because we have already ordered that the trial court enter judgment in favor of

      all Appellants (which includes the Board members in their official capacities),

      our original disposition of the case is unaffected by this opinion on rehearing.

      Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

      2
        While Indiana courts recognize an exception to the mootness doctrine for matters of “great public interest
      which [are] likely to recur[,]” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind.
      2019), Elmer does not claim that his case qualifies for this exception.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 22A-PL-1811 | June 8, 2023                        Page 4 of 4