Joseph Jemsek v. Janelle Rhyne, 662 F. App'x 206

Background

Dr. Joseph Jemsek, a North Carolina physician treating chronic Lyme disease with long-term antibiotics, was investigated by the North Carolina Medical Board (NCMB) after insurer and patient complaints.
In 2006 the NCMB entered an order suspending Jemsek’s license for one year but stayed the suspension subject to conditions; in 2008 the Board issued a public letter of concern.
In 2014 Jemsek discovered that then-Board president Janelle Rhyne had been a paid consultant to Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and alleged this created a conflict of interest in the prior disciplinary proceedings.
Jemsek sued in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under § 2201 and § 1983 to void the 2006 order and 2008 letter, naming the State, the NCMB, and current and former Board members.
The district court dismissed: (1) Jemsek lacked Article III standing to sue former Board members because they could not provide injunctive relief; and (2) Eleventh Amendment immunity barred relief as Jemsek sought to undo past state action rather than obtain prospective relief under Ex parte Young.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the alleged due-process violation was a past event, not an ongoing violation amenable to Ex parte Young; state procedures (e.g., Rule 60(b), reinstatement application) were available for relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing to sue former Board members in official capacities	Jemsek sought declaratory relief voiding past disciplinary documents; that judgment would vindicate his rights	Former members lack present authority to provide injunctive relief or alter Board records, so claims are not redressable	No standing: former members cannot redress injury; declaratory relief alone is insufficient
Applicability of Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young exception	The continuing public availability and effects of the 2006 order and 2008 letter constitute an ongoing violation; prospective equitable relief (voiding and rescinding) is proper	The injuries arise from past, completed disciplinary actions; rescinding those actions would undo past state action and is barred by Eleventh Amendment; Ex parte Young requires ongoing violation and prospective relief	Eleventh Amendment bars suit: the violations were historical, not ongoing, so Ex parte Young does not apply
Whether alleged future discipline or consequences make the violation ongoing	Jemsek suggested potential future discipline if he returns to practice creates an ongoing risk	Future discipline was speculative; Jemsek has not sought reinstatement and offers no concrete, imminent threat	Speculative future harm insufficient to convert past action into ongoing violation
Availability of state-court remedies	Jemsek argued federal forum necessary to remedy constitutional bias discovered after state appeals	Defendants noted North Carolina procedures (Rule 60(b), reinstatement, state-court review) could address the claims	State remedies available; federal courts are not proper forum for these historical claims

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective injunctive relief against state officers for ongoing federal-rights violations)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against unconsenting states and state agencies)
Republic of Paraguay v. Allen, 134 F.3d 622 (4th Cir. 1998) (voiding final state action is not remedied by Ex parte Young where complaint seeks to undo past state action)
Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (Ex parte Young inquiry: is there an ongoing violation and is requested relief prospective)
DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 1999) (mere conjecture about future events insufficient to create an ongoing violation)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (Ex parte Young allows injunctions to conform future conduct to federal law)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (distinction between relief barred by Eleventh Amendment and relief allowed under Ex parte Young can be subtle)
Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990) (state courts presumptively competent to adjudicate federal claims)