Ingram v. Tenn. Dep't of Health

ALTON EARL INGRAM, JR., Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH et al., Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-01565

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

August 9, 2021

Judge Eli J. Richardson

To The Honorable Eli J. Richardson, District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ALISTAIR E. NEWBERN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This action arises out of the suspension of pro se Plaintiff Dr Alton Earl Ingram's Tennessee medical license and his subsequent petitions for reinstatement. Ingram filed a complaint against the Tennessee Department of Health (the Department); Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners (the Board); Board general counsel Andrea Huddleston, J.D.; Board attorneys Alexa Whittemore, J.D. and Maegan Carr Martin J.D.; Board members Dr. Michael Zanolli, M.D., Dr. Subhi Ali M.D., and Dr. Mitchell Mutter, M.D.; Board Medical Director Dr. Larry Arnold, M.D.; Board Medical Consultant Dr. Rene Saunders, M.D.; and an unnamed Consumer Member of the Board. (Doc. No. 1.) Ingram asserted claims for violations of his right to procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; declaratory relief under 28 U.S. § 2201 et seq.; and fraud, civil conspiracy, defamation, and negligence under Tennessee law. (Id.) The Court granted Ingram's application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissing all claims against the Department, the Board, Whittemore, Martin, Mutter, and the Consumer Member of the Board. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court also dismissed all of Ingram's official-capacity claims against the individual defendants, his fraud claim against Zanolli, and his defamation claim against Ali. (Id.) The Court dismissed Ingram's remaining claims against Huddleston, Zanolli, Arnold, Ali, and Saunders pursuant to their motion. (Doc. No. 38.) The Court Ingram's § 1983 procedural due process claims with prejudice and his state law claims and claims for declaratory relief without prejudice. (Id.) The Court gave Ingram an opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction over his state law claims. (Id.)

Ingram has now filed an amended complaint, asserting various claims against Huddleston, Zanolli, Arnold, Ali, Saunders, Whittemore, Martin, and Mutter in their individual capacities for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, tortious interference with a contractual agreement, civil conspiracy, and defamation under Tennessee law; retaliation and violations of procedural and substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. (Doc. No. 47.) The defendants have moved to dismiss Ingram's amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 54), and Ingram has responded in opposition (Doc. No. 59).

For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and that Ingram's procedural due process claims and claims for declaratory relief be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge will further recommend that all remaining claims in the amended complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Ingram's amended complaint restates the facts pleaded in the original complaint and pleads additional facts for the first time. The factual background from the original complaint is set forth in detail in several of the Court's prior opinions (Doc. Nos. 5, 31, 38) and will not be repeated in full here. The additional facts pleaded in Ingram's amended complaint are recounted and are presumed to be true for purposes of resolving the present motion to dismiss.

1. The Board's 2006 Disciplinary Order

In October 2006, the Board issued a disciplinary order, written by Zanolli, that suspended Ingram's medical license. (Doc. No. 47.) The order permitted Ingram to seek probationary reinstatement of his license after three years by “prov[ing] to the Board that (1) he has obtained additional education or training in anesthesia for surgery and (2) he has maintained proficiency in the medical practice of plastic and reconstructive surgery.” (Id. at PagelD# 536-37, ¶ 4.) Zanolli later stated that he “quite frankly never thought [Ingram] would be back”; called the order “‘poorly worded,' ‘nebulous,' and ‘ill-defined'”; and stated that the order “‘parallel[ed],' ‘mimicked,' and ‘mirrored'” an order issued by a Florida administrative law judge when Ingram's medical license was suspended in that state. (Id. at PageID# 536, ¶¶ 2-3 (alterations in original).)

Ingram was concerned that he would not be able to fulfill the order's requirements while complying with Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners Rule 0880-2-.12(d), which states:

[i]t is the Board's intent that the licensee not practice medicine at all during the period of suspension. If a licensee practices medicine in another state during the period of any ordered suspension, the length of time of practice in another state shall not be counted toward fulfilling the suspension ordered by the Board.

(Id. at PageID# 537, ¶ 6 (quoting Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.12(d)).) Ingram believed that this rule would prevent him from practicing medicine in any U.S. jurisdiction “and possibly anywhere in the world”-and, thus, from obtaining additional training and maintaining his proficiency in surgery-while his Tennessee license was suspended. (Id. at PageID# 537, ¶ 8.) When Ingram raised these concerns to Whittemore, she told him that “[t]he Board would not issue an [o]rder with which compliance was impossible, ” that the order's lack of specificity regarding how Ingram could “maintain proficiency” in plastic surgery was intended to make it possible for Ingram to comply with the order's requirements, and that Ingram could satisfy the order's conditions without undergoing any additional training. (Id. at PagelD# 538, ¶¶ 12-14.) Relying on Whittemore's assurances, Ingram did not appeal the 2006 disciplinary order within the statutory period for appeals. (Doc. No. 47.)

When Ingram's suspended license expired in the summer of 2008, he contacted Arnold to discuss renewal and informed Arnold of his plans to satisfy the requirements of the 2006 disciplinary order. (Id.) Arnold assured Ingram that the plan Ingram had described would “more than satisfy” the order, making reinstatement of Ingram's license “a sure thing[, ]” and told Ingram that there was no procedure by which Ingram could present his plan to the Board for preapproval. (Id. at PageID# 539, ¶ 20.) Based on Arnold's assurances, Ingram pursued his plan, submitted documentation to the Board, and received written and verbal confirmation that he had complied with the conditions of the 2006 order. (Doc. No. 47.)

2. The Board's November 2009 Meeting

At the Board's November 2009 meeting, Ingram petitioned for reinstatement of his license. The Board denied his petition by a margin of one vote. (Id.) Ingram alleges that Zanolli, Ali, and Mutter conspired against him and made statements during the meeting that indicated bias against him. (Id.) Ingram states that Zanolli and Ali “defamed” him during the meeting. (Id. at PageID# 540-41, ¶¶ 33, 34.) Ali also misstated the definitions of “license suspension, ” “suspended license, ” and “probationary license, ” misrepresented the terms of the 2006 disciplinary order, and instructed Board member Monica Franklin to vote against reinstatement. (Id. at PageID# 540-41, ¶ 34.) Mutter, who was then Chairman of the Board, stated that “the Board knows what it wants” and told Ingram that Arnold would be able to advise him about how to achieve reinstatement. (Id. at PageID# 541, ¶ 35.) Ingram states that the Board's counsel repeatedly informed Board members “that they were violating Ingram's rights and were not following the Board's rules.” (Id. at PageID# 542, ¶ 37.)

After the November 2009 Board meeting, Ingram told Arnold that he wanted to appeal the Board's decision, but Arnold informed him that an appeal would not be procedurally possible. (Doc. No. 47.) In reliance on that statement, Ingram did not attempt to appeal the Board's decision at that time. (Id.) For the next six months, Ingram corresponded with Arnold to develop a plan by which Ingram could comply with the Board's requirements for reinstatement. (Id.) Arnold told Ingram that he “would take all necessary steps to articulate a workable plan for” lifting Ingram's suspension, but refused to take any steps to create such a plan. (Id. at PageID# 542, ¶ 42.)

3. The Board's July 2010 Meeting

At the Board's July 2010 meeting, Ingram again sought reinstatement of his license. (Doc. No. 47.) Ingram alleges that Mutter, Zanolli, and Ali made numerous false statements against him in the discussion of his reinstatement. Mutter called Ingram's request that the Board clarify its requirements “an end run.” (Id. at PageID# 543, ¶ 46.) He also suggested that the Board fully revoke Ingram's Tennessee license or require Ingram to obtain licensure in Florida before his Tennessee license could be reinstated. (Doc. No. 47.) Ingram's attorney asked whether it would be possible to lift Ingram's suspension and impose a probationary period during which Ingram would not be permitted to practice medicine independently. (Id.) Mutter responded that such an arrangement would not be possible, even though the Board eventually imposed that condition when it lifted Ingram's suspension in 2017. (Id.) By the end of the meeting, the Board still had not indicated how Ingram could receive medical training or otherwise satisfy the order. (Id.)

4. First Chancery Court Appeal

After the July 2010 meeting, Ingram filed an appeal in the Chancery Court...