452 F. App'x 24
2d Cir.2011Background
- Giammatteo is a Connecticut-licensed physical therapist who owns Regional Physical Therapy in Bloomfield and faced Department of Public Health (DPH) proceedings for alleged substandard practice from 1999–2003.
- The Connecticut Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists issued charges and scheduled a hearing on September 14, 2006; the Board commenced the hearing on March 17, 2007.
- Defendant Newton, a DPH staff attorney, prosecuted the charges through April 2007, after which a new panel and counsel took over; Galvin supervised the DPH as Commissioner of Public Health; Peck was the Legal Office Section Chief and Newton’s supervisor.
- Giammatteo alleged Newton elicited misleading testimony from an expert witness, and Newton performed an unannounced visit to RPT, attempted to obtain testimony from the office manager for a parking-space exchange, and asked the Board what witnesses it wished to hear.
- On February 1, 2010, Giammatteo sued Board and Department defendants in district court alleging due process and equal protection violations arising from the administrative proceedings.
- The district court dismissed the § 1983 claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and absolute prosecutorial immunity, and dismissed Newton’s visit to RPT claims for failure to state a cognizable constitutional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants have absolute immunity for actions in prosecutorial capacity | Giammatteo contends some acts were not prosecutorial and not shielded | Defendants contend all actions related to the proceedings were prosecutorial and protected | Yes; all actions within the proceedings were prosecutorial and protected |
| Whether Newton’s RPT visit falls outside immunity and, if so, whether qualified immunity applies | Giammatteo alleges the visit violated rights and was not prosecutorial | Even if outside absolute immunity, Newton is entitled to qualified immunity | Newton’s visit, if outside absolute immunity, is governed by qualified immunity |
| Whether Giammatteo states a federal § 1983 claim against the Department defendants | Giammatteo asserts deprivation of due process and equal protection | Claims fail to allege a federal right violation and lack plausibility | Claims fail to state a § 1983 claim; dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges a due process violation | Giammatteo claims procedural and substantive due process rights were violated | Proceedings provided notice, opportunity to be heard, and impartial final panel | No plausible due process deprivation shown |
| Whether Giammatteo presents a viable equal protection (class-of-one) claim | Giammatteo was treated differently from similarly situated individuals | No showing of disparate treatment necessary for class-of-one | Class-of-one claim not stated; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for acts in prosecutorial capacities)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (jurisdictional questions; distinguish merits from jurisdiction)
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (jurisdiction viewed against possible merits; not dismissible for lack of jurisdiction when may state a federal claim)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facial plausibility required for pleading; no bare assertions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; plead facts, not just conclusions)
- Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- O'Connor v. Pierson, 426 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005) (substantive due process rights are limited to protected interest areas)
- Valez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (due process limits on government action to protect property interests)
- Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin, 468 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (class-of-one equal protection requires highly similar circumstances)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979) (state-law remedies available when § 1983 claim fails on merits)
- RRI Realty Corp. v. Inc. Village of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911 (2d Cir. 1989) (due-process claim requires deprivation of a constitutionally protected right)
- Kamen v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006 (2d Cir. 1986) (district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings on Rule 12(b)(1) motions)