Mills v. State

• Decision Date: 17 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2001-296-Appeal.,2001-296-Appeal.
• Citation: 863 A.2d 202
• Parties: Geraldine MILLS M.D. v. STATE of Rhode Island DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND DISCIPLINE and Bruce McIntyre, Esq.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

863 A.2d 202

Geraldine MILLS M.D. v. STATE of Rhode Island DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND DISCIPLINE and Bruce McIntyre, Esq.

No. 2001-296-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

November 17, 2004.

Geraldine Mills, Pro Se.

Ann T. Turilli, Providence, for Defendants.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for oral argument on November 3, 2004, pursuant to an order directing all parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised on this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues raised by this appeal should summarily be decided.

The plaintiff, Geraldine Mills, M.D. (Dr. Mills), appeals pro se from a Superior Court order dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could granted. Super.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). The plaintiff's suit against defendants, the State of Rhode Island Department of Health Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline (board), and Attorney Bruce McIntyre, stems from the board's temporary suspension of plaintiff's license to practice medicine.¹ Presented with a nearly incomprehensible complaint, the trial justice found that in substance, plaintiff's claims appeared to constitute both an administrative appeal and a civil rights action. Concluding that neither theory survived analysis under the admittedly elastic standard of Rule 12(b)(6), the trial justice granted the motion to dismiss.

The trial justice found plaintiff's complaint to be in part in the nature of an administrative appeal, and noted that the administrative appeal was still pending. After addressing the administrative appeal, the trial justice turned her attention to the apparent civil rights claim, and concluded that as pled, the action could not continue. First, defendant McIntyre is statutorily immune from suit.²See G.L. 1956 § 5-37-1.5. Second, plaintiff is precluded from bringing civil rights actions against the state or its agencies. See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Finally, to prevail on a civil rights claim, "a plaintiff must allege deprivation of some constitutional right under color of law." Graff v. Motta, 695 A.2d 486, 492 (R.I.1997) (quoting Bell v. Brennan, 570 F.Supp. 1116, 1118 (D.C.Pa.1983)). Because Dr. Mills did not allege any deprivation of a constitutionally-secured right, the trial...