Goldstein v. Galvin
719 F.3d 16
1st Cir.2013Background
- Goldstein is Bulldog Investors principal; an outspoken critic of hedge fund regulation.
- Galvin is Massachusetts Secretary overseeing the securities division with adjudicatory and prosecutorial powers.
- Goldstein alleges retaliation for anti-regulation stance by Secretary-induced enforcement actions.
- An administrative complaint was filed Jan 31, 2007 charging unregistered securities offerings under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110A, §301.
- District court dismissed on immunity grounds; First Circuit reviews de novo and affirms dismissal on immunity and related grounds.
- Proceedings included Bulldog I and Bulldog II in state court, and a separate federal suit against the Secretary in his individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion bars this suit? | Bulldog II precludes later actions. | Bulsecretary in Bulldog II was in official capacity; privity applies. | No; official vs individual capacity breaks privity; claim preclusion does not bar |
| Whether Secretary's dual judicial/prosecutorial roles defeat immunity? | Dual roles negate absolute immunity. | Dual roles do not defeat immunity; both functions may be immunized. | Absolute immunity applies to both judicial and prosecutorial functions with dual roles largely protected |
| Whether Secretary's website announcement of the action is actionable retaliation? | Announcement singled out plaintiff by name as retaliation. | Government speech cannot support retaliation claim absent private information or coercion. | Not actionable; government speech retaliation claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (absolute immunity for certain administrative functions; safeguards not required as preconditions)
- Wang v. N.H. Bd. of Regist. in Med., 55 F.3d 698 (1st Cir. 1995) (prosecutorial immunity when performing prosecutorial functions)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (distinguishes inducement of prosecution from prosecutorial initiation; outsiders no immunity)
- Bettencourt v. Bd. of Regist. in Med., 904 F.2d 772 (1st Cir. 1990) (dual-role officials can still have absolute immunity)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (section 1983 claims; immunity considerations for state officials)