# Morgan v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · March 3, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10437773

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** March 3, 2022
- **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/10437773

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity should be without prejudice
- finding that acts protecting the integrity of the judicial process are adjudicatory in nature and therefore are subject to judicial immunity
- holding that once sovereign immunity is raised as a jurisdictional defect, it must be decided before the merits
- finding that suits for monetary damages against a state or state officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

GERALD DEAN MORGAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:21-cv-00274
)
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL )
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME )
COURT OF TENNESSEE and SANDRA )
GARRETT, in her individual capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Gerald Dean Morgan was employed as Disciplinary Counsel for the Board of
Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee (the “Board”). After the Board’s
Chief Disciplinary Counsel Sandra Garrett allegedly terminated him due to statements made on
Twitter, Morgan brought this action for First Amendment employment retaliation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against the Board and Garrett in her individual capacity. The Board and Garrett
(“Defendants”) have now moved to dismiss 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.
(Doc. No. 9). Morgan has responded. (Doc. No. 14). Because the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Morgan’s claim against the Board due to sovereign immunity, and because quasi-
judicial immunity bars any claim against Garrett in her individual capacity, Defendants’ motion
will be granted.
I.
Morgan worked as Disciplinary Counsel for the Board, which is created by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 2). Comprised of 12 members appointed by the
Supreme Court, the Board has a grant of authority to regulate the conduct of licensed attorneys
within the state. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3). Disciplinary Counsel, including Morgan, are tasked with representing

the Board when attorneys appeal a pending disciplinary decision. (Id. ¶ 9). Morgan handles appeals
through every level of the Tennessee judicial branch, including the Tennessee Supreme Court. (Id.
¶ 3).
In May 2020, attorney Brian Manookian appealed a decision by the Board to suspend his
law license for two years. (Id.). Morgan was assigned to represent the Board on appeal. (Id.).
Manookian, whose wife and children are Muslim, argued that Morgan was an “anti-Muslim bigot”
whose bias might prejudice the appeal process. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15). He subsequently filed a Motion to
Disqualify Morgan from representing the Board in the appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15). To support his
argument, Manookian referenced several tweets authored by Morgan from 2015 through 2020. (Id.
¶¶ 13–14).

On December 11, 2020, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Sandra Garrett, whose responsibilities
included “supervis[ing] staff needed for the performance of Disciplinary Counsel’s functions,”
terminated Morgan. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 20). Garrett cited several reasons for her decision to terminate
Morgan, including: (1) Morgan’s duty to protect the public by investigating and prosecuting cases
“without discrimination or bias”; (2) Manookian’s Motion to Disqualify Morgan for bias; (3) a
separate, unnamed attorney’s misconduct complaint against Morgan; and (4) Morgan’s Twitter
posts. (Id. ¶¶ 20–22).
II.
Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate when a federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. When subject matter jurisdiction is called into question—as Defendants have done
here regarding Morgan’s claim against the Board—the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden
of establishing it to survive a motion to dismiss. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit Auth.,

895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990). In a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), a party 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 challenges the sufficiency
of subject matter jurisdiction allegations in the pleading, and the Court must accept the plaintiff’s
allegations as true. Ohio v. Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990).
Meanwhile, a factual attack challenges the actual evidentiary basis for the jurisdiction, and the
Court need not presume truthfulness of the allegations. United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598
(6th Cir. 1994).
A different standard applies to Morgan’s individual capacity claim against Garrett under
Rule 12(b)(6). There, “the complaint must include a ‘short and plain statement . . . showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Ryan v. Blackwell, 979 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). When determining whether the complaint meets this standard, the Court
must accept all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff’s favor, and “take all of those facts and inferences and determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 581 (6th Cir. 2018); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Moreover, the Court must determine only whether
“the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims,” not whether the plaintiff can
ultimately prove the facts alleged. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002)
(quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974)). But “[w]hile the complaint ‘does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to
relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s
elements will not do.’” Blackwell, 979 F.3d at 524 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)).

III.
Defendants seek dismissal because: (1) they are entitled to sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment; (2) Garrett is entitled to either absolute quasi-judicial or qualified immunity
on the individual capacity claims against her; and (3) Morgan fails to state a claim for injunctive
relief against Garrett in her individual capacity. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 6–11). The Court must address
the sovereign immunity issue first before analyzing the merits of Morgan’s § 1983 claim. See
Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1046 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that once sovereign
immunity is raised as a jurisdictional defect, it must be decided before the merits).
A. Sovereign Immunity
Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not
be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the

United States.” U.S. Const. Amend. XI. It is axiomatic that, in the absence of express state waiver
or statutory abrogation by Congress, the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against a state in
federal court, including those for injunctive relief. Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, State of
Mich. Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Pennhurst State Schs. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100–01 (1984)). As relevant here, Tennessee has not consented to suit
under § 1983, see Tenn. Code Ann. §20-13-103; Berndt v. Tenn., 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir.
1986), nor has Congress abrogated States’ sovereign immunity against such claims. See Will v.
Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67 (1989).
In addition to states, sovereign immunity extends to departments and agencies that are arms
of the state, Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978), as well as to state officials, Will, 491
U.S. at 71. This includes the Board of Professional Responsibility. In Tennessee, it is “well settled
that the licensing and regulation of attorneys practicing law in courts of Tennessee is squarely

within the inherent authority of the judicial branch of government.” Smith Cty. Educ. Ass’n v.
Anderson, 676 S.W.2d 328, 333 (Tenn. 1984) (citation omitted). Moreover, the Tennessee
Supreme Court “has original and exclusive jurisdiction to promulgate its own [r]ules,” and “[i]ts
rule making authority embraces the admission and supervision of members of the Bar of the State
of Tennessee.” Id. Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Tennessee Supreme Court created the
Board, “which it has described as its agency.” Moncier v. Jones, 803 F. Supp. 2d 815, 827 (E.D.
Tenn. 2011); see also Donner v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Tenn. Supreme Court, 277 F.
App’x 575, 578 (6th Cir. 2008); Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn.,
104 S.W.3d 465, 470, 472, 474 (Tenn. 2003); Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Supreme
Court of Tenn., 29 S.W.3d 445, 449 (Tenn. 2000).

With these precepts in mind, federal courts have consistently applied sovereign immunity
to both the Board and its Chief Disciplinary Counsel. See Moncier v. Jones, 557 F. App’x 407,
409 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Board was a state official
subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Van Morgan v. Barker, No. 3:19-cv-122, 2020 WL
265282, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2020) (noting that the Board is an “agent of the Tennessee
Supreme Court” to which sovereign immunity applies); Sallee v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of
the Supreme Court, No. 3:15-cv-5, 2015 WL 2374230, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. May 18, 2015) (same);
see also Warren v. Burdi, No. 10-11775, 2011 WL 572424, at *15–17 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2011)
(finding that Michigan’s counterpart to the Board is an arm of the state supreme court, which is
“entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in discharging its ‘constitutional responsibility’ to
supervise and discipline attorneys”). Morgan even alleges that the Board “is an instrumentality of
the State of Tennessee” and was “created by the Supreme Court of Tennessee to regulate the
conduct of licensed attorneys.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 40). It is therefore abundantly clear that the Board is

an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity.
Morgan disagrees, primarily on the grounds that the exception to sovereign immunity set
forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) applies to this case. (Doc. No. 14 at 9–10). But that
exception applies only where a plaintiff sues a state official in their official capacity for
“prospective [injunctive] relief to end a continuing violation of federal law.” Diaz v. Mich. Dep’t
of Corr., 703 F.3d 956, 964 (6th Cir. 2013). Where a complaint fails to “make clear what those
ongoing violations are,” or how injunctive relief would remedy such a violation, the exception
does not apply. Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391, 412 (6th Cir. 2017). Moreover, complaints “based
entirely upon past acts and not continuing conduct that, if stopped, would provide a remedy to”
the plaintiff are not excepted. Gean v. Hattaway, 330 F.3d 758, 776 (6th Cir. 2003).

Here, Morgan’s complaint does not allege any ongoing violation of federal law by either
the Board or Garrett. Instead, Morgan’s allegations are based entirely on his termination. (Compl.
¶¶ 42–43). Moreover, his requests for relief, despite their styling as “injunctions” are entirely
retroactive.1 See Will, 491 U.S. at 71 (finding that suits for monetary damages against a state or
state officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment); see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
278 (1986) (finding that retroactive relief, “even though styled as something else,” is barred by
sovereign immunity); S&M Brands v. Cooper, 527 F.3d 500, 509 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that the

1 To the extent Morgan seeks injunctive relief restraining the Board and Garrett from
opening a disciplinary file against him, such a request is also moot. Morgan admits that the Board
has already dismissed any disciplinary proceeding against him. (Compl. ¶ 35).
Eleventh Amendment bars “all retroactive relief,” rather than just “retroactive monetary relief”)
(emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
The “fiction” of Ex Parte Young simply does not extend to suits such as these, where there
is a clear instrumentality of the state at issue and “where [any] federal law violation is no longer

‘ongoing.’” Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 268 (2011) (citing Green
v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 71 (1985)); see also S.J. Hamilton Cty., 374 F.3d 416, 419 (6th Cir.
2004). Accordingly, Morgan’s claim against the Board is barred in federal court by sovereign
immunity and will be dismissed without prejudice. See Carmichael v. City of Cleveland, 571 F.
App’x 426, 435 (6th Cir. 2014) (noting that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based
on sovereign immunity should be without prejudice).
B. Absolute Quasi-Judicial Immunity
Defendants also argue that Morgan’s claim against Garrett in her individual capacity is
subject to dismissal under the doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 6–7).
The Court agrees. Absolute judicial immunity has protected judges from personal liability for

actions taken in a judge’s official capacity since at least the nineteenth century. See Pierson v. Ray,
386 U.S. 547, 553–54 (1967); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347–48 (1871). Under quasi-judicial
immunity, such protections also extend “to those persons performing tasks so integral or
intertwined with the judicial process that [said] persons are considered an arm of the judicial officer
who is immune.” Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994). Courts have readily extended
quasi-judicial immunity to members of disciplinary or professional licensing boards, including
those in Garrett’s exact role, where they function in an adjudicative, investigatory, prosecutorial,
or judicial manner. See Moncier, 557 F. App’x at 409 (Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Board
of Professional Responsibility); Quatkemeyer v. Ky. Bd. of Med. Licensure, 506 F. App’x 342,
345–49 (6th Cir. 2012) (Board of Medical Licensure); Watts v. Burkhart, 978 F.2d 269, 276 (6th
Cir. 1992) (same); Manookian v. Flippin, No. 3:19-cv-00350, 2020 WL 978638, at *5 (M.D. Tenn.
Feb. 28, 2020) (like Moncier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Board).
Whether quasi-judicial immunity applies is dependent upon “the nature of the function

performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it . . ..” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219,
224 (1988). The Court must therefore examine the nature of Garrett’s role in this particular case.
The official seeking immunity must establish “that such immunity is justified for the governmental
function at issue,” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 28–29 (1991), as well as supported “by overriding
considerations of public policy.” Forrester, 484 U.S. at 224.
Morgan contests that Garrett, in terminating his employment, functioned in an
administrative role that was not intertwined with the judicial process. (Doc. No. 14 at 13). For
support, he relies upon Guercio v. Brody for the proposition that firing employees in judicial
contexts is “an administrative act common to all branches of government and the private sector,
not the type of act normally performed only by judges.” 814 F.2d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir. 1987).

While this may be so in most instances, however, Guercio is both factually and legally distinct
from the job function performed by Garrett in this case. In Guercio, a judge fired his legal secretary
so the Bankruptcy Court could “function more effectively and harmoniously.” Id. at 1118 (citation
omitted). Conversely, here, Garrett acted “squarely within the duties and obligations delegated [to
her] by the Tennessee Supreme Court.” Manookian, 2020 WL 978638, at *5; see also Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 9, § 27 (providing that “[m]embers of the board, district committee members, Disciplinary
Counsel, and staff shall be immune from civil suit for any conduct in the course of their official
duties”); id. § 7.2 (providing for Garrett’s role to supervise staff “needed for the performance of
Disciplinary Counsel’s functions”); id. § 16.1 (providing for disciplinary proceedings against
Disciplinary Counsel arising from misconduct complaints).
Here, Morgan admits that Garrett’s role was to “employ and supervise staff needed for the
performance of Disciplinary Counsel’s functions.” (Compl. ¶ 5). Thus, even taking the

Complaint’s allegations as true, Morgan is not entitled to relief because Garrett was at all times
acting within the scope of her duties as Chief Disciplinary Counsel. As Morgan alleges, Garrett
referenced several reasons for the termination, including: (1) Manookian’s Motion to Disqualify
for bias; (2) a separate misconduct complaint against Morgan by another attorney; and (3)
Morgan’s duty to protect the public by investigating and prosecuting cases “without discrimination
or bias.” (Id. ¶¶ 5, 20–22, 31). Each of these reasons are “intertwined with the judicial process,”
Bush, 38 F.3d at 847, and integral to both the proper functioning of the Board and the judicial acts
it oversees. See Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 258–59 (6th Cir. 1999) (finding that acts
protecting the integrity of the judicial process are adjudicatory in nature and therefore are subject
to judicial immunity); see also Van Morgan, 2020 WL 265282, at *5 (citing Forrester, 484 U.S. at

223–24). Accordingly, Garrett is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for her acts in this
case. Any claim against Garrett in her individual capacity will therefore be dismissed with
prejudice. See id. (dismissing claim against state official on quasi-judicial immunity grounds with
prejudice).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) will be granted.
Morgan’s claim against the Board will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Any claim for damages against Garrett in her individual capacity is barred by quasi-
judicial immunity and will be dismissed with prejudice.
An appropriate order will enter.

WAVERLY AD. Cisne JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10437773. Public record. Not legal advice.