Coggeshall, et al v. Massachusetts Board of Regist, et al

Filing 920100517

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = ' The report was not made part of the record before the\
district court. The appellants — Dr. LeSueur and the boy\'s father,\
Joseph Coggeshall — attempted to supplement the record on appeal,\
but that attempt was rebuffed. Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Regist.\
of Psychologists, No. 09-1111 (1st Cir. May 22, 2009) (unpublished\
order).\
'

var WPFootnote2 = ' In addition, the petition sought declaratory relief under\
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231A, § 1. The superior court dismissed this\
claim as "subsumed within" judicial review of the administrative\
action. That determination is not challenged here.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = ' Section 1983 imposes liability upon those acting under color\
of state law who "subject[], or cause[] to be subjected, any\
citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any\
rights, privileges, or immunities" secured by the federal\
Constitution or by federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = ' We do not imply that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims only\
for money damages. That is not the case. See, e.g., Rosie D. ex\
rel. John D. v. Swift, 310 F.3d 230, 234 (1st Cir. 2002). Here,\
however, we dispose of the nonmonetary claims on other grounds. \
'

var WPFootnote5 = ' The appellants\' assertion that Dr. LeSueur\'s disciplinary\
proceeding was conducted amidst inadequate procedural safeguards is\
a Trojan horse. This assertion seeks to have us consider a\
constitutional claim under circumstances in which such\
consideration is barred by Younger. See infra Part II(B)(1). \
'

var WPFootnote6 = ' The fact that the state proceedings have now run their\
course does not call for a different conclusion. For Rooker-Feldman purposes, courts must look to the situation as it existed\
when the federal suit was commenced. See Federación de Maestros,\
410 F.3d at 24; Maymó-Meléndez v. Alvarez-Ramírez, 364 F.3d 27, 32-33 (1st Cir. 2004).\
'

var WPFootnote7 = ' There is an open question as to whether Younger abstention\
principles apply to claims for money damages. See Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gómez, 585 F.3d 508, 516 n.14 (1st Cir. 2009). \
We are not tasked with answering that question here because the\
damages claims are otherwise barred. See supra Part II(A). \
'

var WPFootnote8 = ' To be sure, the Younger doctrine permits inferior federal\
courts to intervene in ongoing state litigation in rare, tightly\
circumscribed instances. See, e.g., New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc.\
v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 366 (1989);\
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 611-12 (1975); Gibson v.\
Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973). Dr. LeSueur\'s claims do not\
fit within the narrow confines of any such exception.\
'

var WPFootnote9 = ' The First Amendment applies to state action through the\
medium of the Fourteenth Amendment. See N.H. Right to Life PAC v.\
Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 10 n.2 (1st Cir. 1996).\
'

var WPFootnote10 = ' Although the Board placed Dr. LeSueur on probation, she was\
allowed to continue to see patients during the term of her\
probation.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "