Rowen v. Prasifka

Background

Robert Jay Rowen, who represented himself, sued William Prasifka, Reji Varghese, and Jannsen Tan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The lawsuit concerned the suspension of Rowen’s medical license and ongoing proceedings seeking its permanent revocation.

Rowen alleged that Prasifka was the former executive director of the Medical Board of California, that Varghese was its acting executive director, and that Tan was a Deputy Attorney General for California. He alleged that the defendants had suspended his license without a hearing or trial and were pursuing proceedings against him.

Rowen’s theory was that the defendants had not posted official bonds allegedly required by California law. He cited California Government Code sections 1001 and 1453 through 1455, and asserted that the defendants’ offices were vacant and that they therefore lacked authority to suspend or seek revocation of his license. He claimed violations of procedural and substantive due process under the United States and California Constitutions.

Motion and analysis

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a complaint must include enough factual content to make liability plausible, rather than relying on labels, conclusions, or a formulaic statement of legal elements. The court also recognized that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but that this does not allow the court to supply essential elements that were not alleged.

For a claim under Section 1983, Rowen had to allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution and conduct by a person acting under state authority. The court concluded that none of the cited California statutes required people holding the positions at issue—executive director of the Medical Board of California, acting executive director, or Deputy Attorney General—to post a bond as a condition of holding office.

Because Rowen identified no legal authority requiring these defendants to post bonds, the court held that his federal Section 1983 claim failed to state a claim. The court reached the same conclusion regarding his claim under Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution because that claim rested on the same bond theory. The court also stated that Rowen otherwise did not explain how the defendants violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. It granted Rowen leave to amend because it could not conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile. The court set January 10, 2024, as the deadline for an amended complaint and vacated the December 14, 2023 case-management conference, to be reset later if appropriate.