Jeremy Conklin v. Oregon Medical Board, an Oregon State Agency; Nicole Krishnaswami, an individual; Michael Seidel, an individual; and Walter Frasier, an individual

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon considers defendants’ motion to dismiss Jeremy Conklin’s claims concerning an Oregon Medical Board disciplinary investigation, the inactivation of his locum tenens license, and related alleged constitutional and tort violations. The court addresses sovereign immunity and absolute immunity for state medical-board officials performing prosecutorial or quasi-judicial functions. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Holdings

1. The Oregon Medical Board is an arm of the State of Oregon and is entitled to sovereign immunity; because Oregon had not waived immunity or consented to suit in federal court, all federal and state claims against the Board were dismissed.
2. Krishnaswami, Seidel, and Frasier were absolutely immune from damages claims based on conduct related to the Oregon Medical Board's disciplinary proceeding and investigation.
3. Krishnaswami was not entitled to absolute immunity for conduct concerning the inactivation of Conklin's locum tenens license or his alleged ineligibility for an Oregon medical license because that conduct was separate from and unrelated to the disciplinary proceeding.
4. Krishnaswami was entitled to qualified immunity because Conklin did not plausibly allege a constitutional violation and, in any event, did not identify clearly established law showing that the challenged license-inactivation conduct violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
5. The individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Claims 1, 3, and 4 because Conklin failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation and failed to identify clearly established law prohibiting the challenged conduct.
6. Younger abstention required dismissal of Conklin's constitutional claims seeking injunctive relief concerning the ongoing Oregon Medical Board disciplinary proceeding.
7. Conklin failed to state claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress based on Krishnaswami's license-inactivation conduct.
8. Declaratory and injunctive relief are remedies rather than independent causes of action, and because Conklin failed to plead an underlying viable claim, those requests were dismissed.
9. Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend was appropriate because Conklin was a licensed attorney and the complaint's deficiencies, including immunity barriers and failure to state claims, could not be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Oregon Medical Board was immune from Conklin's federal and state claims under the Eleventh Amendment.
2. Whether the individual Oregon Medical Board defendants were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for actions connected to the disciplinary investigation and license inactivation.
3. Whether Conklin plausibly alleged violations of due process, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, equal protection, or retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether Younger abstention barred Conklin's requests for injunctive relief concerning the ongoing state medical-disciplinary proceeding.
5. Whether Conklin plausibly alleged Oregon claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
6. Whether declaratory and injunctive relief were independent causes of action.
7. Whether Conklin should receive leave to amend despite proceeding pro se while licensed as an attorney.

Disposition

dismissed