687 F. App'x 196
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Dr. Richard P. Glunk, a plastic surgeon, was found liable in state court for malpractice in the death of Amy Fledderman; punitive damages were upheld on appeal.
- Separate state disciplinary proceedings followed: first proceeding dismissed; second charged Glunk with “immoral conduct” for allegedly attempting to influence a Board public member by giving checks during a meeting.
- A Department of State hearing examiner (McKeever) found Glunk guilty, suspended his license for 60 days, and fined him $5,000; the Board delegated final adjudication to the hearing examiner and recused itself.
- The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed McKeever’s decision; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review; U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Glunk filed a pro se § 1983 suit in federal court alleging due process violations, improper delegation, prosecutorial/conspiratorial misconduct, and bias; he sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The District Court dismissed the second amended complaint (Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8 grounds), concluding Eleventh Amendment, prosecutorial and judicial immunity, and claim preclusion barred relief; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for state agencies | State Board/Dept. of State not immune for constitutional violations | State entities immune from money damages under the Eleventh Amendment | Dismissal affirmed: Eleventh Amendment bars money-damages suits against state agencies in federal court |
| Absolute immunity for prosecutors | Prosecutors acted with improper motive and conspired; not entitled to immunity | Prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions | Affirmed: prosecutorial decisions are absolutely immune; alleged motives insufficient to avoid Imbler immunity |
| Judicial/hearing examiner immunity | McKeever participated in conspiracy; immunity should not shield misconduct | Hearing examiner functionally judicial and entitled to absolute judicial immunity | Affirmed: McKeever entitled to judicial immunity despite alleged informality or ex parte contacts (Stump/Butz) |
| Claim preclusion and merits of procedural due process claim | New evidence (emails, letter, affidavits) shows bias, conspiracy, and ex parte influence, so claim preclusion inapplicable | Prior state-court adjudication finally resolved same operative facts; new allegations insufficient or available earlier | Affirmed: claim preclusion bars relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised in state appeals; new evidence alleged does not plausibly show bias or overcome preclusion or state-court finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute immunity for prosecutors)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity applies despite informal procedures)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (administrative adjudicator may be functionally comparable to judge)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (limits on abrogation of state sovereign immunity)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials sued in official capacity not subject to money damages under § 1983)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (limits to absolute prosecutorial immunity for investigative acts)
- Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (procedural due process requires impartial tribunal)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (Twombly/Twombly pleading and plausibility applied in Third Circuit)