The opinion
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
)
Randall Bock, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No.
Candace Lapidus Sloane et al., ) 22-10905-NMG
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This action arises from allegations of the plaintiff, Dr.
Randall Bock (“Dr. Bock” or “plaintiff”) that the defendants,
Candace Lapidus Sloane (“Sloane”) and George Abraham (“Abraham”
and together with Sloane, “defendants”), former members of the
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (“the Board”),
unlawfully suspended his medical license thereby destroying his
medical practice.
Pending before the Court are three motions filed by pro se
plaintiff: 1) for leave to file electronically, 2) to reassign
this case and 3) to disqualify counsel for defendants. The
first motion will be allowed. The other two motions will,
however, be denied.
I. Motion to File Electronically
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file electronically (Docket
No. 2) is allowed on the condition that he satisfy all
applicable requirements for pro se litigants. Plaintiff must
have an individual PACER account to file electronically in the
District of Massachusetts.
Plaintiff can register for a PACER account by going to the
PACER website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account.
Pro se e-filing account instructions can be found at
https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-se.htm. If
plaintiff already has a PACER account with e-filing access as a
pro se litigant, he need not register again.
II. Motion to Reassign Case
Plaintiff requests that this action be reassigned to a
different judge “with knowledge of heroin addiction and related
medical issues”. The Court declines the request. United States
district judges are generalists and are not required to have
independent knowledge of or expertise in the subject matter of
the subject action. Pérez-Sosa v. Garland, 22 F.4th 312, 327
(1st Cir. 2022). In any event, addiction and related medical
issues, unfortunately, are not arcane or even unusual, and the
effect of reassignment of this case upon the “efficient
performance of the business of the court” would be marginal or
nonexistent. L.R., D. Mass. 40.1(i)(1).
III. Motion to Disqualify Counsel
Finally, Dr. Bock seeks disqualification of defense
counsel. He contends that it is “ultra vires” for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through its Attorney General, 1)
to defend Board members and 2) to hire private counsel to defend
those members. Those arguments rest upon several
misapprehensions of the plaintiff and the motion will be denied.
Massachusetts law provides that the Attorney General shall
appear for the Commonwealth and its officers in all suits
in which the official acts and doings of said . . . .
officers . . . . are called in question.
M.G.L. c. 12, § 3.
This is one such suit. Although Dr. Bock has sued Sloane
and Abraham in their individual capacities, the action of which
he complains, i.e. the suspension of his medical license, is
among the “official acts and doings” of the Board.
Representation of the defendants by the Commonwealth is thus not
only appropriate but required. See Faust v. Cabral, No. 11-
10422-DPW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109855 at *3-4 (D. Mass. Sept.
27, 2011) (citing Dolan v. Tavares, No. 10-10249-PBS, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 133467 at *1-2 (D. Mass. Dec. 16, 2010)). The
authority cited by Dr. Bock concerns the sovereign and antitrust
immunity of the Commonwealth and is inapposite.
To the extent the motion challenges the purported retention
of private counsel, it is moot because Attorney Bor-Zale has
withdrawn his appearance. In any event, Dr. Bock’s allegation
that defendants have retained private counsel is mistaken
because Attorney Bor-Zale appeared in this action as a Special
Assistant Attorney General pursuant to a secondment from
WilmerHale, i.e. as a temporary, volunteer member of the
Attorney General’s office, not as retained private counsel.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file electronically (Docket No. 2) is ALLOWED. The motion to
reassign this action (Docket No. 6) is DENIED. The motion to
disqualify counsel (Docket No. 13) is DENIED.
The Court has read and considered plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a reply (Docket No. 18) and the attached proposed
reply. Therefore, that motion is ALLOWED, albeit without
consequence.
So ordered.
__/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton __
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: July 15, 2022