Duhon v. Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
2:20-cv-02022
E.D. La.Feb 2, 2022Background
- Dr. Gregory Duhon was a cardiology fellow at LSU (2018–2019); after disciplinary warnings he was referred for a fitness-for-duty occupational psychological evaluation (OMPE) and then to the Healthcare Professionals’ Foundation of Louisiana (HPFLA).
- HPFLA directed Duhon to a third-party evaluator, Professional Renewal Center (PRC), which produced a report diagnosing past ADHD and substance-abuse history and recommending costly treatment; HPFLA threatened referral to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (LSBME) for noncompliance.
- LSBME Director of Investigations Lawrence Cresswell opened an investigation, repeatedly urged compliance with HPFLA/PRC recommendations, and later (after Duhon allowed his Louisiana license to lapse) caused LSBME to report the surrender to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).
- Duhon alleges LSBME conducted an indefinite preliminary review without a hearing or opportunity to present independent psychiatric evidence, that these actions deprived him of Fourteenth Amendment due process, and that the NPDB report harmed his employment prospects.
- Duhon sued Cresswell in his official capacity seeking prospective injunctive relief (expunge/seal records); Cresswell moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) contending Ex parte Young does not permit suit because no ongoing violation is alleged.
- The central question was whether Ex parte Young permits an official-capacity suit for prospective relief where the alleged constitutional violation occurred in the past and the plaintiff is not seeking reinstatement or reentry into the licensing process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ex parte Young permits official-capacity suit for injunctive relief | Duhon contends he seeks prospective relief (expungement/sealing) that can remedy ongoing harms from the earlier deprivation | Cresswell argues Ex parte Young requires an ongoing violation; here the investigation and alleged due-process violations are past events, so sovereign immunity bars suit | Court: Ex parte Young does not apply; no ongoing federal-law violation alleged, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether continued effects (NPDB report, employment harm) make the violation ongoing | Duhon asserts continued harm from the NPDB report and records supports prospective relief | Cresswell: continued effects are not a continuing constitutional violation — only past state action caused those effects | Court: Continued consequences do not convert past violations into ongoing violations; mere reverberating harm is insufficient |
| Whether relief sought (retraction/expungement) is analogous to reinstatement/prospective relief | Duhon likens expungement/retraction to reinstatement (which is prospective under Warnock/Nelson) | Cresswell: Expungement/retraction is not equivalent to reinstatement of public employment and Warnock’s public-employment rationale does not extend here | Court: Request is distinguishable from reinstatement and plaintiff cites no authority extending Warnock/Nelson to this context; relief is not permitted under Ex parte Young |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (establishes that state officers may be sued in federal court for prospective injunctive relief to end ongoing violations of federal law)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (requires that the violation be ongoing, not merely past conduct with lingering effects, to invoke Ex parte Young)
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (frames Ex parte Young inquiry as whether complaint alleges an ongoing violation and seeks prospective relief)
- Williams on Behalf of J.E. v. Reeves, 954 F.3d 729 (5th Cir. 2020) (remediation of a prior violation is insufficient under Ex parte Young; plaintiffs must allege current unlawful state action)
- Nelson v. Univ. of Tex. at Dallas, 535 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008) (holds reinstatement of public employment is prospective relief under Ex parte Young in the public-employment context)
- Warnock v. Pecos Cnty., 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) (establishes that reinstatement claims by public employees qualify as prospective relief under Ex parte Young)