Mir v. Zucker

Background

Jehan Zeb Mir, MD, filed an amended complaint after Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to replead. The amended complaint named some of the same California and New York officials, or their successors, who had been involved in proceedings concerning the revocation, enforcement, or reporting of Mir’s California and New York medical-license revocations. It also named people who had testified or provided evidence in the California proceedings, as well as former employers, supervisors, and coworkers.

Mir sought damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including reinstatement of his California and New York medical licenses and orders preventing officials from enforcing the revocations. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, and under state law. The court also construed the amended complaint as attempting to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1851 and a claim involving intentional interference with interstate commerce.

Earlier rulings and Mir’s arguments

Chief Judge McMahon’s earlier order had dismissed Mir’s federal claims based on several grounds. Those grounds included issue preclusion, which prevents a party from relitigating an issue already decided; claim preclusion, which generally prevents a party from bringing claims that were already brought or could have been brought in an earlier case; absolute judicial immunity; absolute witness immunity; and failure to allege facts sufficient to support certain claims. She declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and allowed Mir to file an amended complaint.

Mir’s memorandum argued that the New York and California officials were not immune, including for claims seeking injunctive relief; that issue preclusion and claim preclusion did not apply; and that newly discovered information undermined the earlier rulings. He also asked to appear before the court took further adverse action, which the court treated as a request for oral argument.

New York officials

Judge Stanton held that issue preclusion barred Mir from relitigating the New York officials’ immunity, regardless of whether he sought damages or injunctive relief. In an earlier related proceeding, the court had held that the New York officials were protected by absolute judicial immunity, and the Court of Appeals had affirmed that decision. The court concluded that Mir had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate immunity in that proceeding, including during the appeal.

The court also rejected Mir’s argument that newly discovered information allowed him to relitigate immunity. The information concerned whether the officials had properly revoked or enforced his New York license, not whether they were immune from suit. The court further held that claim preclusion independently barred claims arising from the New York license revocation and its enforcement, including claims concerning alleged ministerial acts.

California officials

The court held that claim preclusion barred Mir’s claims against the California officials. The earlier related proceeding had dismissed his claims against those officials for failure to state a claim, which the court treated as a decision on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Mir had also had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in the district court and on appeal.

The court rejected Mir’s argument that claim preclusion did not apply because he now asserted claims against officials in their official capacities. The court reasoned that he could have asserted those claims earlier because they arose from the same medical proceedings and license revocation. A new legal theory or requested remedy did not avoid claim preclusion. The court also held that newly discovered evidence did not prevent claim preclusion because Mir did not allege that the information had been fraudulently concealed or could not have been discovered with due diligence.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also granted Mir’s motion for permission for electronic case filing. It dismissed the action, dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and as frivolous, and denied all other pending requests as moot.

The court warned that if Mir filed another civil action in that court arising from the medical proceedings, the license revocations, or their enforcement, it might bar him from filing future actions involving those events without first obtaining permission from the court. The opinion stated that Mir could appeal the order of dismissal.