# Morgan v. Barker

> District Court, E.D. Tennessee · January 17, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10433683

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 17, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10433683

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the defendants’ argument that “reversal of a completed state decision” to expel a student was retrospective
- finding that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility was a state official and, thus, claims for damages against her in her official capacity were barred by the Eleventh Amendment

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

CHARLES VAN MORGAN, )
) Case No. 3:19-cv-122
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Travis R. McDonough
v. )
) Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton
WILLIAM M. BARKER, MARGARET L. )
BEHM, WILLIAM L. HARBISON, )
JEFFREY M. WARD, and BARBARA M. )
ZOCCOLA, in their official and individual )
capacities, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Defendants William M. Barker, Margaret L. Behm, William L.
Harbison, Jeffrey M. Ward, and Barbara M. Zoccola’s motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff Charles
Van Morgan’s claims against them in their official and individual capacities under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Doc. 13). Defendants
compose the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (the “Board”), and this action arises from the
Board’s denial of Plaintiff’s application to the State of Tennessee Bar. (Id. at 1.) Because the
Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Doc. 13) will be GRANTED, and all claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
The following facts alleged in Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 10) will be accepted
as true for the purposes of this motion. On February 14, 2019, after a hearing, the Board denied
Plaintiff’s application for a license to practice law in the State of Tennessee. (Doc. 10, at 7–8.)
Plaintiff recounts that, on the day of his hearing, “much younger applicants were heard first[,]”
while he was heard last. (Id. at 8.) There was an armed trooper in the room at his hearing but
“not in any other confidential hearings.” (Id.) During his hearing, he was “not allowed to
answer all accusations brought inflammatory [sic] by board members . . . .” (Id.)

The Board’s stated reasons for denying his application included that Plaintiff “had not
adequately informed [his] law school and the [B]oard of [his] termination from the highway
patrol.” (Id. at 7.) According to Plaintiff, he was “wrongly fired” for a pursuit of a suspect, and
the Board used that pursuit and ensuing termination as evidence of “bad conduct” even though
federal civil lawsuits arising from the pursuit were decided in his favor. (Id.) Plaintiff complains
that the Board relied instead on the outcome of his administrative case against the Tennessee
Highway Patrol. (Id.) In that case, according to Plaintiff, “[t]he Tennessee courts . . . excluded
expert testimony both sides agreed [was] needed to decide the case.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further
alleges that an administrative judge “ruled without proof that [he] was not credible and the

[Board] allowed this finding in their decision contrary to Tennessee case law.” (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that the Board denied him a law license while granting licenses to “much
younger applicants with criminal convictions and a former state trooper in similar but far worse
circumstances.” (Id. at 7–8.) According to Plaintiff, the Board consists of “members of the
profession who are not supervised by another state agency[,]” and the child of at least one of the
board members is also a lawyer. (Id.)
On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Tennessee Supreme
Court, seeking review of the Board’s denial of his application for admission to the Tennessee bar
pursuant to Section 14.01 of Rule 7 of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. (Doc. 14-
4.) Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this Court on April 15, 2019. (Doc. 1.) The
Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed Plaintiff’s petition, concluded Plaintiff had “not shown
grounds for relief[,]” and denied the petition on June 20, 2019. (Doc. 14-6.)
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on August 1, 2019. (Doc. 10.) In his amended
complaint, he asserts the following claims against Defendants, all of which arise from the

Board’s denial of his application to the Tennessee bar: (1) violation of his due-process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) violation of the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; (3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the
several states in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; and (5) age-based discrimination in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. (Doc. 10, at 5, 7–8.) Plaintiff
seeks treble damages and an injunction “requiring the [B]oard to not use 601(a) termination from
[the Tennessee Highway Patrol (“THP”)] or reporting of it on the application to the BAR [sic] to
exclude me from my Tennessee law license or any new finding not already listed.” (Id. at 6.)

On August 8, 2019, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss (Doc. 13), and that motion is now
ripe for the Court’s review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Under Rule 12(b)(1), a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction “may either attack the claim of jurisdiction on its face or it can attack
the factual basis of jurisdiction.” Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc., 410 F.3d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 2005).
“A facial attack is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading itself[,]” and “the court must
take the material allegations of the petition as true and construed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.” United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Scheuer
v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 235–37 (1974)). “A factual attack, on the other hand, is . . . a challenge
to the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. In the context of a factual attack, “no
presumptive truthfulness applies to the factual allegations, and the court is free to weigh the
evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Id. (citation

omitted). In reviewing factual motions, “a trial court has wide discretion to allow affidavits,
documents, and even a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts.” Ohio
Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff bears the burden
of proving jurisdiction exists. Golden, 410 F.3d at 881; Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit
Auth., 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990).
III. ANALYSIS
As set forth below, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims due
to the doctrines of sovereign immunity, Rooker-Feldman, and quasi-judicial immunity.
A. Official-Capacity Claims

i. Sovereign Immunity
Defendants assert that they are immune in their official capacities from Plaintiff’s claims
for damages because the Board is an arm of the judicial branch of the government of Tennessee.
(Doc. 14, at 4.) As a jurisdictional matter, sovereign immunity “must be addressed prior to
reaching the merits.” Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1045–46 (6th Cir. 2015).
a. Damages
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, in its recognition of the
doctrine of sovereign immunity, bars federal courts from adjudicating suits brought by private
individuals seeking damages against states, in the absence of waiver or congressional override.
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 28–29
(1991). The State of Tennessee has neither waived its immunity to this suit nor to suits under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 generally, see Berndt v. Tennessee, 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 1986), and
Congress has not abrogated Tennessee’s immunity, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345
(1979). Sovereign immunity also bars suits for damages against state officials in their official

capacities because “individuals sued in their official capacities stand in the shoes of the entity
they represent.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 810 (6th Cir. 2003); see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Because the Board was created by Section 23-1-101 of the Tennessee Code and
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7 and is an agent of the Tennessee Supreme Court, a suit against
members of the Board in their official capacities is a suit against the State of Tennessee. See,
e.g., Moncier v. Jones, 557 F. App’x 407, 409 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that the Chief Disciplinary
Counsel for the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility was a state official and, thus,
claims for damages against her in her official capacity were barred by the Eleventh Amendment).

Therefore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for damages against
Defendants in their official capacities.
b. Prospective Injunctive Relief
Sovereign immunity’s bar to suits for damages in federal courts also includes suits for
retroactive injunctive relief. S & M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper, 527 F.3d 500, 509 (6th Cir.
2008) (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 103 (1984)). Relief is
retrospective, and therefore barred by sovereign immunity, if “it is tantamount to an award of
damages for a past violation of federal law . . . .” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986).
However, suits for prospective injunctive relief, known as Ex Parte Young suits, provide an
exception to a State’s sovereign immunity and may be brought against state officials in their
official capacity “to end a continuing violation of federal law.” Price v. Medicaid Dir., 838 F.3d
739, 746–47 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159 (1908)); see also Diaz v.
Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 703 F.3d 956, 964 (6th Cir. 2013). Prospective injunctive relief can
involve the reversal of a past administrative ruling. See, e.g., Carten v. Kent State University,

282 F.3d 391, 396 (6th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the defendants’ argument that “reversal of a
completed state decision” to expel a student was retrospective); see also Durham v. Martin, 388
F. Supp. 3d 919, 937 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (“The request that the plaintiff's right to a state pension
and state-provided healthcare be reinstated and that he maintain those benefits going forward
seeks prospective relief . . . .”).
The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that the manner in which the Board evaluated
and adjudicated his application for a law license violated federal law. He asks the Court to
enjoin the Board from considering his termination from the THP or his reporting of it when
reviewing his application for a license to practice law in Tennessee. (Doc. 10, at 6.) Therefore,

it appears that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief may constitute an Ex parte Young claim.
ii. Rooker-Feldman
However, the Court need not decide, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over such a
claim under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The United States Supreme Court is vested, under 28
U.S.C. § 1257, with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from final state-court judgments. Lance
v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006). Accordingly, “lower federal courts are precluded from
exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” Id. Under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack jurisdiction over claims that are “inextricably
intertwined” with a state court’s decision. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
486–87 (1983) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1257); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
(1923).
The Feldman plaintiffs challenged the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’s denial of
their requests for waivers of a bar-admission rule. 460 U.S. at 463. The Supreme Court held that
the federal district court had jurisdiction over a general challenge to the bar-admission rule’s

constitutionality because it did not require direct review of a state-court decision, but the district
court lacked jurisdiction over claims that the state had unlawfully denied their particular petitions
because those claims were “inextricably intertwined” with the state-court decisions. Id. at 485–
86. “Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was
wrong, it is difficult to conceive the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a
prohibited appeal of the state-court judgment.” Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir.
1998). “The Rooker–Feldman doctrine includes cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because
of the ‘full faith and credit’ given to state judicial proceedings.” VanWulfen v. Montmorency
Cty., 345 F. Supp. 2d 730, 741 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (quoting Gottfried v. Med. Planning Servs.,

Inc., 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir.1998)).
However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply when there is parallel state and
federal litigation, even if the state court enters judgment while the case is still pending in the
federal court. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), “neither Rooker nor Feldman supports the notion
that properly invoked concurrent jurisdiction vanishes if a state court reaches judgment on the
same or related question while the case remains sub judice in a federal court.” Id. at 292.
The relief Plaintiff requests would require this Court to review the Tennessee Supreme
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of certiorari, a final state-court adjudication. (See Doc.
14-6 (concluding that Plaintiff had “not shown grounds for relief”).) Here, like the plaintiffs in
Feldman, Plaintiff does not appear to challenge any particular state law or Board policy but
rather the Board’s treatment of his application alone. His grievance is that the Board violated his
particular constitutional rights, not that the Board applies unconstitutional bar-admission rules.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, thus, applies to the type of challenge Plaintiff brings.

However, there is still a question whether the doctrine applies here, since Plaintiff filed
his case in this Court when his petition was still pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Plaintiff asserts that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply here, because “[t]his present
case was filed before any State court decision and there are independent claims.” (Doc. 15, at
12.) But, the “properly invoked concurrent jurisdiction” scenario discussed in Exxon-Mobil, 544
U.S. at 292, is absent here. On April 15, 2019, when Plaintiff filed this action, his claims were
not ripe, as there was still the possibility that the Tennessee Supreme Court would grant him
relief. “If a claim is unripe, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint
must be dismissed.” Bigelow v. Mich. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 970 F.2d 154, 157 (6th

Cir.1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction while Plaintiff’s petition was pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court because
his claims did not become ripe until the Tennessee Supreme Court denied his petition.
In sum, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here because Plaintiffs’ claims constitute an
appeal of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s final state-court adjudication, over which the United
States Supreme Court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Thus, even if
Plaintiff’s claim is for prospective relief within the Ex Parte Young exception, this Court
nonetheless lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims
will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
B. Individual-Capacity Claims
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against them in their individual capacities are
subject to dismissal under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. (Doc. 14, at 5.) First

recognized by the United States Supreme Court in 1871, the doctrine of judicial immunity has
protected judges from personal liability for acts taken within their judicial roles since at least
1608. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–54 (1967); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347–48
(1871). It is based on the “general principle of the highest importance to the proper
administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be
free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to
himself.” Bradley, 80 U.S. at 347. Otherwise, “[l]iability to answer to every one who might feel
himself aggrieved . . . would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either
respectable or useful.” Id.

The doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity has developed since, further extending absolute
immunity “to those persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process
that these persons are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune.” Bush v. Rauch,
38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994). But entitlement to absolute immunity depends on “the nature
of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it . . . .” Forrester v.
White, 484 U.S. 219, 224. An official wishing to invoke absolute immunity must show “that
such immunity is justified for the governmental function at issue[,]” Hafer, 502 U.S. at 29, and
“by overriding considerations of public policy.” Forrester, 484 U.S. at 224.
In Moncier v. Jones, the Tennessee Supreme Court temporarily suspended an attorney’s
law license. 557 F. App’x at 408. The attorney sued the former Chief Disciplinary Counsel for
the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, alleging that she had violated his
constitutional rights under the United States Constitution. Id. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court’s holding that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel was entitled to absolute, quasi-

judicial immunity from suits for damages in her individual capacity. Id. at 409. Similarly, in
Quatkemeyer v. Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, 506 F. App’x 342 (6th Cir. 2012), the
Sixth Circuit held that members of the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensures “exercise[d] the
requisite adjudicatory functioning for quasi-judicial immunity” when they “exercise[d] authority
over medical practitioners in Kentucky and ha[d] authority to issue subpoenas, conduct various
levels of inquiries, make findings and issue different orders.” Id. at 346.
Here, Defendants’ responsibilities as Board members are, like the responsibilities of the
defendants in Moncier and Quatkemeyer, clearly adjudicatory in nature. When the Board
considered Plaintiff’s bar application and presided over his show-cause hearing, the members

were performing an adjudicatory function which, in the absence of immunity, would expose
them to lawsuits by each applicant whose application they denied and would undermine their
ability to perform their duties. See Forrester, 484 U.S. at 223–24. Quasi-judicial immunity is
appropriate to the Board’s function and is necessary here to allow the Board to function
unharassed.
The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity from
Plaintiff’s claims for damages. And with respect to any claims for equitable relief Plaintiff
asserts against the Board members in their individual capacities, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
again applies to bar this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, all of Plaintiff’s individual-capacity
claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court will not, therefore, consider
Defendants’ additional arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiff’s
claims are also subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. (See generally Doc. 14.)
IV. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Doc. 13) is
GRANTED. All claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.

/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10433683. Public record. Not legal advice.