Hooshang Kadivar, M.D. v. Robert Stone, 804 F.2d 635, 11th Cir. (1986)

804 F.
2d 635
Hooshang KADIVAR, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
Robert STONE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-5146
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 19, 1986.
James E. Alderman, Swann & Haddock, P.A., Ft. Peirce, Fla., Marguerite
H. Davis, Swann & Haddock, P.A., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiffappellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for State of Fla., Tallahassee, Fla., Salvatore
Carpino, Freeman & Lopez, Tampa, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
CORRECTED OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Kadivar filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint against four attorneys in the
St. Lucie [Florida] State Attorney's Office; two state court judges; Joseph
Lawrence, the chief attorney for the Florida Department of Professional
Regulation (DPR); the members of the Florida Board of Medical Examiners;
and Deletha Spooner, who had complained to the St. Lucie County Police
Department about his conduct during her physical examination. Kadivar
alleged that the defendant state attorneys investigating Spooner's complaint
acted to prejudice his case and conspired with other defendants to terminate his
license to practice medicine in Florida, all under color of law. He claimed that
Lawrence and the DPR violated his constitutional rights to due process and
equal protection of the laws in the conduct of the administrative proceedings

brought against him. Kadivar also alleged that the Board violated his
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection in reaching its decision
to revoke his license and that the judges violated his constitutional rights in
reaching their respective decisions. Finally, Kadivar alleged that Spooner
conspired with defendant state attorneys and Lawrence under color of state law
to deny Kadivar his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of
the laws in both the administrative and criminal proceedings.
2
The district court dismissed all claims against all defendants with prejudice and
Kadivar appealed. We hold that the district court erred in dismissing Dr.
Kadivar's complaint against the state attorneys and Lawrence on grounds of
absolute immunity. In addition, the district court erred in dismissing the
complaint against Spooner on the ground that Dr. Kadivar failed to plead facts
that would support a finding of involvement by Spooner in a conspiracy to
deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights.1
The immunity available to a prosecutor turns upon the functional nature of his
activities rather than upon his status. A prosecutor has absolute immunity only
when engaged in activities intimately associated with the judicial process, such
as initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case. Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Marrero v. City of Hialeah,
625 F.2d 499 (5th Cir.1980). Although a prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity
when engaging in quasi-judicial functions, he has only a qualified immunity
when carrying out administrative or investigative functions. Marrero, 625 F.2d
at 504-05. It is necessary to determine whether the activities of Lawrence and
the state attorneys fell within the zone of absolute protection. That they were
"acting in their official capacity" is alone insufficient to earn them absolute
immunity; they must also have been engaging in quasi-judicial functions. When
a prosecutor is acting as an advocate for the state, some of his duties may
involve actions outside the courtroom and prior to the initiation of the
prosecution. The district court must determine whether the alleged activities in
this case were part of defendants' roles as advocates rather than investigators or
administrators.
Dismissal of a Sec. 1983 complaint is not proper unless it appears that a

plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. A private
person who conspires with state officials acting under color of state law may be
held liable for damages in a Sec. 1983 action for participating in the conspiracy
regardless of whether the state officials are themselves immune from suit.
Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Company, Inc., 604 F.2d 976, 982-83 (5th
Cir.1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 943, 100 S.Ct. 1339, 63 L.Ed.2d
777, 449 U.S. 1021, 101 S.Ct. 588, 66 L.Ed.2d 483 (1980). The facts alleged by
Dr. Kadivar in support of his claim that Spooner was involved in a conspiracy
to deprive him of his right to practice medicine were sufficiently specific to
make the complaint more than a bare bones allegation.
5
Our decision does not imply that the case cannot be disposed of by summary
judgment; this is for the district court.
REVERSED.
Plaintiffs argue that if the district court included Lawrence in its dismissal of
Count IV on Eleventh Amendment grounds, it erred in so holding. Because we
find that the district court dismissed only the claims against DPR and the
Florida Board of Medical Examiners on Eleventh Amendment grounds, we
need not address the issue of whether the Eleventh Amendment would bar Dr.
Kadivar's suit against Lawrence

Hooshang Kadivar, M.D. v. Robert Stone, 804 F.2d 635, 11th Cir. (1986)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hooshang Kadivar, M.D. v. Robert Stone, 804 F.2d 635, 11th Cir. (1986)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hooshang Kadivar, M.D. v. Robert Stone, 804 F.2d 635, 11th Cir. (1986)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

804 F.

Hooshang KADIVAR, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals,

equal protection of the laws in the conduct of the administrative proceedings

Dismissal of a Sec. 1983 complaint is not proper unless it appears that a

You might also like