Ralph Read v. Kathleen Haley
650 F. App'x 492
9th Cir.2016Background
- Ralph Lewis Read, pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the Oregon Medical Board revoked his medical license and issued an Order of Evaluation and fines; the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed aspects of the Board’s action.
- Read’s federal complaint alleged a mix of “non-fraud” constitutional challenges to the Board’s authority, fraud claims against unidentified Board employees, and claims against specific officials (an ALJ, a state prosecutor, and Board members).
- The district court dismissed the complaint on multiple grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman for some claims, lack of standing for injunctive claims, judicial/prosecutorial/official immunities, failure to plead fraud with particularity, and Rule 12(b) procedural posture (no answer required).
- Read appealed pro se. The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction, standing, immunity doctrines, pleading rules, and discretionary denials (default judgment/request to compel answers).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in full, concluding Rooker–Feldman barred a de facto appeal, Read lacked standing for injunctive relief, defendants were immune in their official roles, fraud claims failed Rule 9(b), and the district court acted properly under the rules governing motions to dismiss and defaults.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of Read’s challenge to the Board/appeals decision | Read contends federal court can review Board actions and related state-court rulings | Defendants argue Read’s attack is a forbidden de facto appeal of the state-court judgment | Rooker–Feldman bars Read’s first challenge to the Order; some other challenges considered facial but ultimately dismissed on other grounds |
| Standing for injunctive relief against Board authority and fines | Read seeks injunction against Board’s alleged unconstitutional authority, claiming future injury if he regains a license | Defendants argue Read’s injury is speculative and not a concrete, imminent harm | Read lacks standing: alleged future/license-dependent injury is conjectural; injunctive claims dismissed |
| Immunity of ALJ, state prosecutor, and Board members | Read alleges misconduct by ALJ Gutman, AAG Foote, and Board members | Defendants assert judicial immunity for ALJ, prosecutorial immunity for Foote, and absolute immunity analogizing Board members to judges/prosecutors | Court affirmed immunity dismissals: judicial, prosecutorial, and absolute immunity applied to Board members |
| Sufficiency of fraud pleading and procedural defaults/answers | Read asserted fraud by unidentified Board employees and sought default judgment for alleged failures to answer | Defendants maintained fraud not pleaded with Rule 9(b) particularity and timely motions to dismiss were proper before answers; default inappropriate | Fraud claims dismissed for failure to plead with particularity; district court rightly required motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b) and properly denied default judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal suits that are de facto appeals of state-court judgments)
- Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602 (9th Cir.) (facial challenges to state statutes are not barred by Rooker–Feldman)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.) (standing may be raised on appeal)
- Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843 (9th Cir.) (standing requirements for prospective injunctive relief)
- Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (U.S.) (bill of attainder doctrine elements)
- Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.) (judicial immunity scope)
- Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832 (9th Cir.) (prosecutorial immunity for acts tied to judicial phase)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S.) (absolute immunity for certain federal officials performing quasi-judicial functions)
- Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (medical board members entitled to absolute immunity)
- Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.) (state medical board, staff, and counsel entitled to absolute immunity)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir.) (standard for default-judgment discretion)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.) (affirming denial of default judgment where appropriate)
- Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir.) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)