Berry v. Seeley, 2:10-cv-00162

Background

Berry, a pro se plaintiff, sues Judge Seeley, Guinn, Jenkins, Miller, and Mountain States Health Alliance in the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking injunctive relief and damages in a civil rights action.
The state-court discovery dispute at issue involved production of Berry’s medical records and his Social Security number, with Judge Seeley issuing an order requiring disclosure.
Berry alleges ex parte communications between defense counsel and court personnel and seeks relief including removal/recusal of Judge Seeley and suppression of records.
The court evaluates the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and standard of plausibility, noting pro se status but enforcing Rule 8 requirements.
Judge Seeley moves to dismiss on immunity and abstention grounds, among others; the court grants the motions and dismisses with prejudice.
Guinn, as circuit court clerk, is subjected to quasi-judicial immunity; Jenkins and Miller are private attorneys and not state actors; Mountain States’ actions are not subject to the Privacy Act or §1983 conspiracies; all claims are dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Seeley is immune from §1983 liability	Berry argues immunity does not apply due to constitutional rights violations.	Seeley is absolutely immune for judicial acts within jurisdiction; no clear absence of jurisdiction.	Judge Seeley immunity bars claims against Seeley in both capacities.
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages against Seeley	Berry asserts State liability notwithstanding immunity doctrines.	Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages against state officials; claim barred.	Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against Seeley in official capacity.
Whether Younger abstention bars federal review of ongoing state proceedings	Berry seeks federal relief in a pending state case.	Younger abstention applies; state proceedings involve important state interests and provide adequate relief.	Younger abstention applies; court declines to intervene.
Whether Jenkins/Miller are state actors for §1983 liability	Private attorneys acted under color of state law; state action established through Lugar/Edmonson concepts.	Private attorneys do not act under color of state law; no state action.	Jenkins and Miller are not state actors; §1983 claim against them fails.
Whether Mountain States’ conduct supports Privacy Act/§1983 conspiracy claims	Mountain States violated Privacy Act and conspired to violate Berry’s rights.	Privacy Act does not apply to private actors; no state action; conspiracy lacks specificity.	Privacy Act claim against Mountain States dismissed; conspiracy claim dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity extends to acts within jurisdiction)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (scope of judicial immunity; act within jurisdiction protected)
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (Eleventh Amendment bar against official-capacity suits for money damages)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (Eleventh Amendment bars officials sued in official capacity; individuals can be sued personally)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (sovereign immunity bars monetary claims against state in federal court)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (two-part test for state action by private parties)
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) (state action when government participate in jury selection; private action not necessarily state action)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible claim beyond mere conclusory statements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (threadbare recitals of the elements insufficient; plausibility standard)