Guttman v. Khalsa, 03-2244.

• Decision Date: 17 March 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-2244.,03-2244.
• Citation: 401 F.3d 1170
• Parties: Stuart T. GUTTMAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.T.S. KHALSA, Livingston Parson, and The State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees. United States of America, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

401 F.3d 1170

Stuart T. GUTTMAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.T.S. KHALSA, Livingston Parson, and The State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees United States of America, Intervenor.

No. 03-2244.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 17, 2005.

Ian D. McKelvy, Sanders, Bruin, Coll & Worley, P.A., Roswell, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Timothy S. Hale (Susan R. Johnson with him on the brief), Riley, Shane & Hale, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants-Appellees.

R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General, David K. Flynn and Kevin Russell, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, filed a brief for Intervenor United States of America.

Before LUCERO, ANDERSON, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

Having failed to obtain reinstatement of his license to practice medicine through an action in New Mexico state courts, Dr. Stuart Guttman now seeks relief in federal court. His license to practice medicine was revoked by the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners ("Board") and that decision was affirmed by the New Mexico Seventh Judicial District Court. His appeals to the New Mexico Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court were unavailing. Subsequently, Dr. Guttman filed suit in federal district court against G.T.S. Khalsa, the Board's attorney, Livingston Parsons, the hearing officer, and the state of New Mexico, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM.

I

Dr. Guttman possessed a medical license issued in New Mexico in 1993 with certain stipulations that were a consequence of his history of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Due to his mental illness, Dr. Guttman had practiced under similar restrictions in both Mississippi and Texas. The stipulations to his New Mexico license were lifted by the Board in May 1995. However, in December 1999 the Impaired Physicians Committee ("Committee") directed Dr. Guttman to appear before it in response to complaints received about his professional conduct. After meeting with the Committee, Guttman received from the Board a Notice of Contemplated Action because of his mental illness and because of allegations that he was dishonest in responding to the Board's inquiries. He further received an Order of Summary Suspension of his medical license. Guttman appeared with counsel before the Board at a three-day hearing to determine whether his license to practice medicine in New Mexico should be revoked. During the hearing, Guttman's counsel proposed a number of restrictions, similar to those under which Guttman had previously practiced in Texas, that would limit Guttman's medical practice to a solo clinic as well as require regular reporting to the Board and posting notice of his restrictions in his medical office. These accommodations were designed to address Guttman's pattern of conduct which made it difficult for fellow physicians and medical staff to work with him.

Following the hearing, the Board made specific findings which included a history of Guttman's past pattern of problems with medical staff and patients in Mississippi, Texas, and New Mexico. The Board also found that Guttman had not given complete and honest responses to its inquiries concerning past problems with his practice in Gallup, New Mexico. As a consequence of these findings and numerous additional findings of abusive and disruptive behavior toward fellow physicians, medical staff, and patients unbecoming of a licensed physician, the Board concluded that further therapeutic treatment would not remove the danger he posed to the public if he continued to practice medicine. Moreover, the Board found that Guttman could not be effectively monitored and would be unable to practice medicine safely. On February 28, 2001, the Board revoked Guttman's medical license pursuant to its authority under New Mexico's Uniform Licensing Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-1-1 et seq.

Guttman's appeal of the Board's decision to the Seventh Judicial District Court of New Mexico was denied because the state court found that the decision was based on substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent. However, the state court refused to consider Guttman's claim under Title II of the ADA because the claim had not been raised specifically before the Board. Although Guttman had proposed particular accommodations, he had not asserted any ADA rights before the Board for their consideration. His appeal before the New Mexico Court of Appeals was denied, as was his petition for certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Having exhausted all available state remedies, Guttman filed a complaint in federal district court alleging violations of his procedural due process rights under § 1983 and for violations of Title II of the ADA. Because a New Mexico state court rendered a final judgment with regard to Dr. Guttman's appeal from the Board's decision revoking his license, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to hear Guttman's claims. In addition, the district court concluded that absolute immunity applied with regard to Guttman's § 1983 claim against Khalsa and Parsons and that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applied with regard to his ADA claim against New Mexico. Guttman now presents this appeal.

II

We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kenmen Eng'g v. City of Union, 314 F.3d 468, 473 (10th Cir.1999). Under the doctrine that has arisen from two Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), a federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments of state courts. This doctrine is based upon an inference that follows from 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) which provides that "[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari." Appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments having been vested in the Supreme Court, it follows that "no court of the United States other than [the Supreme Court] could entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment" of a state's highest court. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416, 44 S.Ct. 149. In Rooker, the harm alleged in federal court was based on the supposed errors made by the Indiana Supreme Court in deciding the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. Because federal district court jurisdiction is "strictly original," the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. To allow a district court to modify the judgment of a state court "would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction," id., that is implicitly denied to district courts.¹ Thus, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party who loses in state court is barred "from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgement in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Kiowa Indian Tribe v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir.1998) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994)).

Although federal district court review of issues actually adjudicated by state courts forms the clearest example of a forbidden exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the other half of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids a district court from entertaining claims "inextricably intertwined" with a state court judgment. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303. Feldman presented the question whether the district court had jurisdiction to review a District of Columbia court's refusal to grant plaintiffs a waiver to take the District of Columbia bar exam. Id. at 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303. In response, the Supreme Court reasoned that "if the constitutional claims presented to a United States district court are inextricably intertwined with the state court's denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiff's... [state court claims], then the district court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision." Id. at 483, n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303. If the actual claim brought in federal court has not been adjudicated in a prior state court proceeding, then a district court must determine whether "in essence" a party seeks review of the state-court judgment.² Id.

Because Guttman first raised his claims in state court, we look, under Rooker-Feldman, to whether he essentially seeks to bring a forbidden de facto appeal. See, e.g., Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is "inextricably intertwined" with the underlying state court judgment against him). To determine whether Rooker-Feldman deprives a federal court of jurisdiction, we ask "whether the state-court judgment caused, actually and proximately, the injury for which the federal-court plaintiff seeks redress." Kenmen Eng'g, 314 F.3d at 476. That is, we seek to determine "whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from that judgment." Id. (citing Garry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1365 (7th Cir.1996)).

In the present case, Guttman alleges that his injury results from the Board's failure to provide accommodations for him pursuant to the ADA. Noting that he presented the Board with proposed restrictions to his license to practice medicine, he argues that a violation of the ADA did not...