Opinion
11-P-1233
04-20-2012
VALENTINA P. GORBATOVA, guardian, v. JOEL M. SEMUELS.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This is an action by Valentina P. Gorbatova, as guardian of Gennadiy N. Gorbatov, against an administrative hearing officer of the Commonwealth, Joel M. Semuels. Semuels heard an appeal from a decision of the internal case review committee of the Executive Office of Elder Affairs and issued a decision adverse to Gorbatova. Gorbatova appealed that determination to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA), but did not seek review of the DALA decision under G. L. c. 30A, § 14. Instead, Gorbatova brought an action in the Superior Court seeking disciplinary action against Semuels. The action was dismissed and this appeal ensued. We affirm. Gorbatova raises a number of issues on appeal, the majority of which are not presented as proper appellate argument. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). In essence, Gorbatova claims that Semuels lacked jurisdiction to render a decision and attributes the adverse determination to bias.
Gorbatova filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Gorbatov vs. Hartstein, Secretary of Executive Office of Elder Affairs, et al., United States Dist. Ct. No. 1:10CV11172-RGS (D. Mass.). Gorbatova's petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, has been denied.
The complaint seeks disciplinary action against Semuels as an attorney. On appeal, Gorbatova claims that only the Supreme Judicial Court has jurisdiction to hear a complaint of attorney discipline pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 1, as amended, 430 Mass. 1319 (2000). Semuels discharged his duties in his capacity as an administrative hearing officer, not as an attorney. Regardless, there is no private right of action to compel disciplinary proceedings against an attorney in this court or the Supreme Judicial Court. See Matter of a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney, 449 Mass. 1013, 1014 (2007); Matter of a Request for an Investigation of Attorneys, 460 Mass. 1025, 1026 (2011).
Semuels acted in his capacity as hearing officer, and he therefore is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See LaLonde v. Eissner, 405 Mass. 207, 211-213 (1989); Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 418 Mass. 760, 766-767 (1994). See also Archambault vs. Printzlau, United States Dist. Ct., No. 87-1384-Mc, slip op. at 2 (Aug. 3, 1990). Absolute judicial immunity extends to administrative hearing officers. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512-517 (1978); Coggeshall v. Massachusetts Bd. of Registration of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658, 662-663 (1st Cir. 2010).
Gorbatova's motions, to the extent that they seek to expand the record on appeal, are denied. The arguments contained in the motions are duplicative of those contained in her brief, and have been fully considered.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Wolohojian & Sullivan, JJ.),