Guttman v. Khalsa

From Conservapedia

In Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1032-34 (10th Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that state medical board officers are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their decisions.

The panel, which included Judge Michael McConnell, was unanimous. It wrote that:

The Supreme Court has long recognized that officials in administrative hearings can claim the absolute immunity that flows to judicial officers if they are acting in a quasi-judicial fashion. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 514, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1978). For an official at an administrative hearing to be protected by absolute immunity "(a) the officials' functions must be similar to those involved in the judicial process, (b) the officials' [**14] actions must be likely to result in damages lawsuits by disappointed parties, and (c) there must exist sufficient safeguards in the regulatory framework to control unconstitutional conduct." Horwitz v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 822 F.2d 1508, 1513 (10th Cir. 1987).

In Horwitz, a plaintiff challenged a decision made by the Colorado State Medical Examiners Board in Colorado. Id. at 1510. We held that the board's hearing officers served a quasi-judicial function and, hence, that they were protected by absolute immunity from a suit alleging that one of their decisions violated federal law. Id. This case is nearly identical to the case at bar. Guttman does not argue that Parsons' functions were dissimilar to those involved in the judicial process, that his actions were unlikely to result in damages lawsuits by disappointed parties, or that the regulatory framework governing the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners is somehow infirm.

Instead, Guttman attempts to distinguish this case from Horowitz by alleging that Parsons was biased because he had supervised Guttman during his probationary period. The Supreme Court has established that an accusation of a conflict of interest does not trump a claim of absolute immunity. "Judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice ...." Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12. Only accusations that a judge was not acting in his judicial capacity or that he acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction can overcome absolute immunity. Id. Guttman does not allege that the Board or Parsons was without jurisdiction - he merely claims that Parsons should have recused himself. Parsons is hence entitled to absolute immunity in this suit.