Court Opinion

ID: 2963440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:45.088599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:39.489238
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1864

                                 JOHN W. WANG, M. D.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

               NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
                                           ______________

                             and Keeton,* District Judge.
                                          ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Vincent C. Martina for appellant.
             __________________
             Daniel J.  Mullen, Senior  Assistant Attorney General,  with whom
             _________________
        Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, was on brief.
        _________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                     June 6, 1995
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                            
        ____________________

             *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                    CYR, Circuit Judge.  John W. Wang, M.D., appeals from a
                    CYR, Circuit Judge.
                         _____________

          district court  judgment dismissing  his claims for  monetary and

          equitable  relief relating  to  certain disciplinary  proceedings

          conducted by the New Hampshire Board of Registration in Medicine,

          which  culminated in the  revocation of  his license  to practice

          medicine  in New Hampshire.   We affirm the  district court judg-

          ment.

                                          I
                                          I

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                    Wang practiced medicine for approximately sixteen years

          under   a  medical   license  issued   by  the   Commonwealth  of

          Massachusetts  in 1967, then moved  to New Hampshire  in 1983 and

          resumed  the  practice of  medicine  under  a newly-obtained  New

          Hampshire  medical  license.   On March  16,  1988, the  Board of

          Registration in  Medicine for the  Commonwealth of  Massachusetts

          ("Massachusetts  Board")  revoked   Wang's  medical  license  for

          professional misconduct.1   In  light of the  Massachusetts Board

          action against Wang, the New  Hampshire Board of Registration  in

          Medicine ("New  Hampshire Board" or  "Board") issued an  order on

          July  20,  1988, suspending  his  New  Hampshire medical  license

          pursuant to  the  New Hampshire  reciprocal revocation  statute,2
                              
          ____________________

               1The  charges and findings appear in Wang v. Board of Regis-
                                                    ____    _______________
          tration in Medicine, 537 N.E.2d 1216 (Mass. 1989).
          ___________________

               2The reciprocal  revocation statute, N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.  
          329:17-c (1984), in effect at the time provided:

               The  board may  summarily deny  a license  to, or  revoke or
               restrict  the license of, any  person who has been subjected

                                          2

          and  allowing him  until August 26  to request  an administrative

          hearing.

                    Wang  promptly  obtained preliminary  injunctive relief

          from  a New  Hampshire superior  court, enjoining  the suspension

          order  pending  a revocation  hearing  before  the New  Hampshire

          Board.   The Board in turn  withdrew its suspension order and, on

          August 11, 1988, ordered that  Wang show cause why his  New Hamp-

          shire license  ought not  be revoked  on the  ground that  he had

          never informed the  Board of the license  revocation order issued

          by the Massachusetts  Board.  On October  5, 1988, the  New Hamp-

          shire Board  decided to investigate Wang's  New Hampshire medical

          practice.

                    Pending  investigation by the New Hampshire Board, Wang

          appealed the Massachusetts Board  license revocation order to the

          Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC").  Contemporaneously,

          Wang sought    and on February 23, 1989, obtained    a second New

          Hampshire superior court order, enjoining the New Hampshire Board

          from pursuing "any hearing  the result of which might  be revoca-

          tion of [Wang's] New Hampshire license based on the action of the

          Massachusetts  Board  . .  .  until such  time  as the  matter in

          Massachusetts has  been finally adjudicated  in the [SJC]."   Two

          months later     on reconsideration    the New Hampshire superior

          court vacated  its  injunction for  lack  of jurisdiction.    The

          following week,  the SJC  upheld the Massachusetts  Board license

                              
          ____________________

               to disciplinary  action related to  professional conduct  by
               the competent authority of any other jurisdiction.

                                          3

          revocation order. 

                    On  May 22,  1989,  counsel was  appointed  by the  New

          Hampshire  Board  to  investigate  Wang's New  Hampshire  medical

          practice.   The investigation  took over  two years, followed  by

          hearings commencing in  July and  ending in October,  1991.   The

          Board  found that      in and  of  itself     the  unprofessional

          conduct  which had  prompted  the Massachusetts  Board to  revoke

          Wang's medical license warranted  revocation of his New Hampshire

          license.    Further, the  Board  found  that Wang's  unreasonable

          withholding of  information from the Board  during its investiga-

          tion into  his New  Hampshire medical  practice, and  his failure

          even  to  demonstrate  an  attempt to  address  the  professional

          deficiencies  in his  Massachusetts practice, combined  "not only

          [to] justify,  but [to] require reciprocal  license revocation in

          New Hampshire."  On  March 5, 1992, the Board  issued its written

          decision and order revoking Wang's New Hampshire medical license.

                    Wang  appealed  the  revocation  decision  to  the  New

          Hampshire Supreme Court, claiming deprivations of his due process

          rights under state and  federal law, including alleged violations

          of the Board's own rules,  regulations and enabling statutes, and

          asserting conflicts of interest and unfair prejudice on  the part

          of Board  members and its counsel.   On August 26,  1992, the New

          Hampshire Supreme Court summarily affirmed the license revocation

          order, finding  the New  Hampshire Board decision  neither unjust

          nor unreasonable,  and that  the appeal presented  no substantial

          question of law.

                                          4

                    Meanwhile, on  November 22, 1991, before  the New Hamp-

          shire  Board's license  revocation  order ever  issued, Wang  had

          commenced  the present action against the  Board, its members and

          counsel,  in the United States District Court for the District of

          New  Hampshire.   The federal  complaint under  42 U.S.C.    1983

          asserted claims  for monetary relief and for temporary and perma-

          nent injunctive relief enjoining  further disciplinary action  by

          the Board; a  judicial declaration that the Board's  actions were

          fundamentally unfair and violative of Wang's right to due process

          of law; and an award of  attorney fees against Board members  and

          its counsel in their individual capacities.  The federal district

          court stayed  its  proceedings  pending  a decision  by  the  New

          Hampshire Supreme Court.

                    All  defendants  moved  to dismiss  the  federal action

          shortly after the New  Hampshire Supreme Court summarily affirmed

          the New Hampshire Board's license revocation order.  The district

          court  dismissed the claims for monetary relief against the Board

          and  its  members,  in  their official  capacities,  on  Eleventh

          Amendment  immunity  grounds.   Later,  the  claims for  monetary

          relief against Board members and its counsel, in their individual

          capacities,  were dismissed  on  grounds  of  absolute  immunity.

          Finally, on  July 12,  1994, the  district court entered  summary

          judgment on the claims for  injunctive relief against the  Board,

          finding that  it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the

          New Hampshire Supreme Court decision.  Wang appealed.

                                          II
                                          II

                                          5

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                    On appeal, Wang contends  that the district court erred

          in dismissing  his claims for  monetary relief against  the Board

          and  its members in their  official capacities; in sustaining the

          absolute  immunity claims  interposed  by Board  members and  its

          counsel,  acting in  their individual  capacities, in  that these

          defendants had  exceeded their respective adjudicative and prose-

          cutorial roles  and  would be  entitled,  at most,  to  qualified

          immunity  under New Hampshire law;  and in ruling  that it lacked

          subject  matter jurisdiction  to  afford  prospective  injunctive

          relief.

          A.   Monetary Relief3
          A.   Monetary Relief
               _______________

               1.   The Board and Board Members (Official Capacities)
               1.   The Board and Board Members (Official Capacities)
                    _________________________________________________

                    As  it is well settled "that neither a state agency nor

          a  state official acting in his official capacity may be sued for

          damages in a section 1983 action," Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d
                                             _______    _________

          104, 108 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Will v. Michigan  Dep't of State
                                           ____    ________________________

          Police,  491 U.S.  58, 71  (1989)), cert.  denied, 502  U.S. 1063
          ______                              _____  ______

          (1992); see also Kaimowitz  v. Board of Trustees, Univ.  of Ill.,
                  ___ ____ _________     _________________________________

          951 F.2d  765, 767 (7th Cir. 1991)  (finding that, as neither the

          state  nor its "alter ego"  (state university) is  a "person" for

          section  1983 purposes, neither is  subject to suit under section

                              
          ____________________

               3Rule  12(b)(1)  dismissals  for  lack   of  subject  matter
          jurisdiction  are reviewed  de  novo, Hogar  Agua  y Vida  en  el
                                      __  ____  ___________________________
          Desierto,  Inc.  v. Suarez-Medina,  36  F.3d 177,  181  (1st Cir.
          _______________     _____________
          1994),  crediting all  well-pleaded allegations  and drawing  all
          reasonable  inferences favorably  to  the plaintiff.   Murphy  v.
                                                                 ______
          United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995).
          _____________

                                          6

          1983),  we affirm the dismissal of the claims for monetary relief

          against  the  Board and  its  members  acting in  their  official

          capacities.   

               2.   Board Members and Board Counsel (Individual Capacities)
               2.   Board Members and Board Counsel (Individual Capacities)
                    _______________________________________________________

                    Immunity claims in section 1983 actions are governed by

          federal  law.   Martinez  v. California,  444  U.S. 277,  284 n.8
                          ________     __________

          (1980).  Wang nonetheless contends that the Board members and its

          counsel, in their individual  capacities, were entitled, at most,

          to "good faith" immunity (under  New Hampshire law) from monetary

          liability under section 1983.  As we discern no material distinc-

          tion  between  the  quasi-judicial  and  prosecutorial  functions

          performed  by these  defendants  in behalf  of the  New Hampshire

          Board, and those performed  by their Massachusetts Board counter-

          parts,  the  district  court order  dismissing  these "individual

          capacity" claims was entirely  proper.  See Bettencourt v.  Board
                                                  ___ ___________     _____

          of  Registration  in Medicine,  904  F.2d 772,  782-85  (1st Cir.
          _____________________________

          1990).  

                    The  Massachusetts Board  members and  its professional

          staff were  held absolutely immune from suit  in their individual

          capacities under section 1983, on the ground that these officials

          serve in  quasi-judicial capacities "functionally  comparable" to

          those performed by a state court judge.  Id. at 783.  As with the
                                                   ___

          Massachusetts Board,  New Hampshire Board members  weigh evidence

          and  make factual  determinations, N.H.  Rev. Stat. Ann.    329:-

          17(VI),  determine sanctions,  see id.    329:17(VII),  and issue
                                         ___ ___

                                          7

          written  decisions  in disciplinary  actions.   See  id.    329:-
                                                          ___  ___

          18(III).4  

                    Although Wang attempts to differentiate between the two

          administrative  tribunals on  the ground  that the  New Hampshire

          Board assumed  an "inquisitorial  or investigative role"  in this

          case by  instigating and prosecuting the charges against him, the

          attempted  distinction is  without  legal  significance.    State

          officials  performing prosecutorial functions  -- including their

          decisions to  initiate administrative proceedings aimed  at legal

          sanctions -- are entitled to absolute immunity as well.  See Butz
                                                                   ___ ____

          v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515 (1978);  see also Horwitz v. Board
             ________                             ___ ____ _______    _____

          of Medical Examiners, 822 F.2d 1508, 1515 (10th Cir.) (describing
          ____________________
                              
          ____________________

               4The New Hampshire Board  is empowered to conduct disciplin-
          ary proceedings, and discipline  licensees in appropriate  cases,
          N.H. Rev.  Stat.  Ann.    329:2(II)(b),  329:17(I),(VI),  and  to
          appoint  legal  counsel  and "such  other  assistants  as  may be
          required" in performing its administrative  responsibilities, id.
                                                                        ___
            329:2(II)(c).  It may  initiate disciplinary proceedings on its
          own  motion or  upon  a written  complaint alleging  professional
          misconduct.  See id.   329:17(I), (VI).  It may reprimand; limit,
                       ___ ___
          suspend or  revoke medical licenses; assess administrative fines;
          and order treatment, counseling, continuing medical education and
          medical practice  supervision.  Id.   329:17(VII).   Appeals from
                                          ___
          its disciplinary  rulings are taken to the  New Hampshire Supreme
          Court, id.    329(VIII), under the  procedures set forth  in N.H.
                 ___
          Rev. Stat. Ann.   541.  
               The  Massachusetts Board  adjudicatory proceedings  are con-
          ducted  by a hearing officer,  see Bettencourt, 904  F.2d at 773,
                                         ___ ___________
          who  makes all evidentiary  and procedural rulings,  and issues a
          "tentative  decision"  which  the  Massachusetts  Board  reviews,
          together with  any objection  filed by the  respondent physician,
          before  issuing its "final  decision."  See  id. at 773-74.   The
                                                  ___  ___
          Massachusetts   Board  accords  "substantial  deference"  to  all
          credibility determinations by the hearing officer, but may reject
          or revise any finding based on  conflicting evidence.  Id.  Legal
                                                                 ___
          rulings  are reviewed de novo.   Id.   Appeals from Massachusetts
                                __ ____    ___
          Board  decisions are  taken to the  SJC, which  may set  aside or
          modify  board decisions on a finding that substantial rights have
          been prejudiced.  Id. at 774.
                            ___

                                          8

          Colorado  medical board officials' adjudicatory and prosecutorial

          role),  cert. denied, 484 U.S.  964 (1987).   Thus, New Hampshire
                  _____ ______

          Board counsel, like  the Massachusetts Board professional  staff,

          see Bettencourt, 904 F.2d at 785, is absolutely immune from suit,
          ___ ___________

          in his individual capacity, based on his participation in partic-

          ular cases before the Board.  See id.  
                                        ___ ___

                    Wang next  argues that the New  Hampshire Board members

          and  its counsel were  imbued with such  "overwhelming malice and

          bad faith"  that due process  was not to  be had at  their hands.

          The  allegation of malice and bad faith is founded principally on

          the  New  Hampshire  superior  court  decision      preliminarily

          enjoining  further Board action    entered  on February 23, 1989,

          and vacated for  lack of subject  matter jurisdiction two  months

          later.5

                    Even assuming  a level of  malice and bad  faith suffi-

          cient to poison the  New Hampshire Board proceedings     contrary

          to  the record  evidence, as  well as  the New  Hampshire Supreme

          Court decision     the Board members and  its counsel nonetheless
                              
          ____________________

               5In its  February 23, 1989, order enjoining the Board disci-
          plinary proceedings, the  superior court found that  Wang had not
          been  accorded due process, in  that the Board  had prejudged the
          outcome of its proceedings.  Further, the superior  court faulted
          the multiple roles assumed  by Assistant Attorney General Douglas
          Jones, as Board counsel and prosecutor.  "Under such circumstanc-
          es there could not be even the appearance of fairness," the court
          said.
               On  appeal,  Wang relies  heavily  on  these superior  court
          findings  for his claim that the Board proceedings were devoid of
          due process.  But  the superior court findings are  without legal
          effect since  the superior court lacked  subject matter jurisdic-
          tion and its findings  were implicitly rejected by the  New Hamp-
          shire  Supreme   Court  decision  affirming   the  Board's  final
          revocation order.

                                          9

          would be absolutely immune from suit, in their individual capaci-

          ties,  on section  1983 claims  arising out  of their  respective

          judicial,  quasi-judicial  and/or  prosecutorial functions,  even

          though  they acted "maliciously and  corruptly."  Pierson v. Ray,
                                                            _______    ___

          386 U.S. 547,  554 (1967); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424  U.S. 409, 424
                                     ______    ________

          (1976) (extending absolute immunity  under section 1983 to prose-

          cutors acting in quasi-judicial  capacity).  Nor does  Wang claim

          that his medical  license was revoked by the Board  in the "clear

          absence of all jurisdiction."   Stump v. Sparkman, 435  U.S. 349,
                                          _____    ________

          357  (1978) (quoting Bradley v.  Fisher, 80 U.S.  (13 Wall.) 335,
                               _______     ______

          351 (1871)); see also Ricci v. Key Bancshares of Maine, Inc., 768
                       ___ ____ _____    _____________________________

          F.2d 456, 462 (1st Cir. 1985) ("The conduct in question need only

          be  more or less connected  to 'the general  matters committed by

          law to [the Board's] control or supervision'  and not 'manifestly

          or palpably beyond [the  Board's] authority.'") (quoting Spalding
                                                                   ________

          v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498 (1896)).  
             _____

                    Lastly, Wang  contends  that absolute  immunity  cannot

          insulate  Board members  and  its counsel  from  suit, since  the

          challenged  disciplinary  action  was  taken pursuant  to  a  New

          Hampshire reciprocal revocation statute, see N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
                                                   ___

            329:17-c (1984), unconstitutional on its face.  He reasons that

          though our decision in Bettencourt might support absolute immuni-
                                 ___________

          ty for  medical  board members  and its  counsel, provided  their

          actions   were  taken   under  adequate   procedural  safeguards,

          Bettencourt does not immunize  such officials from suit  in their
          ___________

          individual capacities for official actions summarily taken  under

                                          10

          a reciprocal revocation statute simply on the ground that another

          jurisdiction has revoked the respondent's license.

                    We  decline  the  invitation  to  provide  an  advisory

          opinion on a claim  for which there is no  evidentiary support in

          the appellate  record.  See  United States  Nat'l Bank of  Or. v.
                                  ___  _________________________________

          Independent  Ins.  Agents of  Am., Inc.,  113  S. Ct.  2173, 2178
          _______________________________________

          (1993)  ("'The exercise of judicial  power under Art.  III of the

          Constitution  depends on the existence of a case or controversy,'

          and  'a  federal  court  [lacks] the  power  to  render  advisory

          opinions.'") (citations omitted);  State of R.I. v.  Narragansett
                                             _____________     ____________

          Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d  685, 705 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,  115 S.
          ____________                                _____ ______

          Ct.  298 (1994)  (same).   Wang concedes  that the  final license

          revocation  order issued by the  New Hampshire Board  was not the
                                                                    ___

          product of a summary proceeding.   Considering that almost  three

          years  elapsed  between  the  commencement  of  the  disciplinary

          investigation and the entry  of the revocation order,  we believe

          the  concession is well  founded.  Moreover,  the Board conducted

          several hearings  at which  Wang and  his attorney  appeared; the

          proceedings were  transcribed; the  Board issued a  written deci-

          sion; and Wang was afforded    and utilized to the fullest    the

          right  to appeal  the  final Board  order  to the  New  Hampshire

          Supreme Court.   We find  no basis in fact  or law for  the claim

          that the procedural safeguards accorded Wang by the New Hampshire

          Board differed in any  significant respect from those the  Massa-

          chusetts Board afforded the  respondent in Bettencourt.   See 904
                                                     ___________    ___

          F.2d at 783.  

                                          11

          B.   Injunctive Relief 
          B.   Injunctive Relief
               _________________

                    Finally,  Wang challenges the  summary judgment entered

          against him on the claim for permanent injunctive  relief against

          the  Board.6   In  particular,  he attacks  the  federal district

          court ruling  that this claim is  "inextricably intertwined" with

          the New  Hampshire Supreme Court decision  disallowing his appeal

          from  the New  Hampshire  Board's license  revocation order  and,

          consequently,  that  the  district court  lacked  subject  matter

          jurisdiction to enjoin the present claim.  See Rooker v. Fidelity
                                                     ___ ______    ________

          Trust Co., 263 U.S.  413, 416 (1923); District of  Columbia Court
          _________                             ___________________________

          of Appeals  v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983).  Wang argued to
          __________     _______

          the New Hampshire Supreme  Court that the procedure by  which his

          medical license was revoked  failed to afford him due  process of

          law.  The New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected his claim, and its

          decision was  reviewable only by the United States Supreme Court.

          See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482.
          ___ _______

                    Wang frivolously argues, nonetheless, that  the Rooker-
                                                                    ______

          Feldman doctrine does not  bar the constitutional claims asserted
          _______

          below in  support of his request for  permanent injunctive relief

          against  further disciplinary  proceedings by the  Board, because

          unlike  the plaintiffs in Feldman, there is no other forum avail-
                                    _______

          able to him.  He is wrong.

                              
          ____________________

               6Summary judgment rulings are  reviewed de novo to determine
                                                       __ ____
          whether  the pleadings, depositions,  answers to interrogatories,
          and admissions on  file, together  with the  affidavits, if  any,
          show that there  is no genuine issue as to  any material fact and
          that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
          Simon v. FDIC, 48 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 1995).
          _____    ____

                                          12

                    Wang  raised  the  due  process claim  before  the  New

          Hampshire  Supreme  Court,  albeit unsuccessfully,  and  may  not

          obtain  review of its decision  in federal district  court on any

          pretext.  Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de P.R., 917 F.2d 620,
                    _________    ___________________________

          628 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[L]ower federal courts have no jurisdiction

          to hear appeals  from state  court decisions, even  if the  state
                                                        ____  __

          judgment is  challenged as unconstitutional."), cert. denied, 502
                                                          _____ ______

          U.S. 1029  (1992) (emphasis  added).  Constitutional  claims pre-

          sented to a United States district court, and found to  be "inex-

          tricably intertwined" with state court proceedings, impermissibly

          invite  the federal  district court,  "in essence,"  to review  a

          final  state  court decision.   Feldman,  460  U.S. at  483 n.16.
                                          _______

          Lower federal  courts are without subject  matter jurisdiction to

          sit  in  direct review  of state  court  decisions.   Id. (citing
                                                                ___

          Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs,
          ____________________________    ________________________________

          398 U.S. 281, 296 (1970)).  

                                         III
                                         III

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                    The district court judgment  dismissing all claims must

          be affirmed. 

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                          13