Whether non-attorney administrative officials are entitled to absolute immunity for fabricating evidence during a pre-adjudicatory investigation of a physician licensee

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In this case, the Petitioner, Eddison Ramsaran, M.D., alleges that during an investigation into his medical practice, certain non-attorney members of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (“BORIM”) fabricated evidence to assert sufficient cause existed and persuade other Board members to recommend that BORIM initiate disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Ramsaran. As decided by this Court in its decision from Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1998): A prosecutor may not shield his investigative work with the aegis of absolute immunity merely because, after a suspect is eventually arrested, indicted, and tried, that work may be retrospectively described as ‘preparation’ for a possible trial. Buckley, 509, U.S., at 276. Thus, in recognizing that a prosecutor may be entitled to absolute immunity only for conduct directly related to their prosecutorial function, this Court explained: There is a difference between the advocate’s role in evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses as he prepares for trial, on the one hand, and the detective’s role in searching for the clues and corroboration that might give him probable cause to recommend that a suspect be arrested, on the other hand. Buckley, 509, U.S., at 274. Accordingly, the test for determining whether an individual is entitled prosecutorial-based absolute quasi-judicial immunity turns on whether, at the time of the specific conduct, the individual was functioning as an advocate of the state. This advocate “function” can attach no sooner than the time evidence gathered during an investigation is evaluated to determine if it provides sufficient cause to initiate adversarial proceedings. When sufficient cause does not exist, purely investigatory work undertaken that continues the search for evidence which may give rise to i sufficient cause is not protected by absolute immunity, as “[a] prosecutor neither is, nor should consider himself to be, an advocate before he has probable cause to have anyone arrested.” Buckley, 509 U.S., at 274. Here it is alleged that non-attorney administrative officials of a state medical licensing board manufactured and planted evidence during a pre-adjudicatory investigation of a physician licensee in order to persuade the board to initiate adjudicatory proceedings against the licensee. Simply, was it an error for the lower courts to hold that non-attorney administrative officials function as prosecutors and are entitled to absolute immunity when manufacturing and planting evidence during a pre-adjudicatory investigation of a licensee? ii LIST OF THE PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14 (b)(Gii) (amended 2019), the following is a list of all proceedings in trial and appellate courts that are directly related to the case in this Court: Court Docket No. Case Caption Date of Judgment Massachusetts 1881CV03571 Eddison Ramsaran, M.D. v. October 2, 2019 . Superior Candace Lapidus Sloane, Court, M.D., Chair, Board of (Judgment of Middlesex Registration in Medicine,and Dismissal) . County Joseph P. Carrozza, Jr., M.D. Massachusetts 2019-P-1745 Eddison Ramsaran, M.D. v. December 31, 2020 Court of Candace Lapidus Sloane, Appeals M.D., Chair, Board of (Dismissal Registration in Medicine, and Affirmed) Joseph P. Carrozza, Jr., M.D. Massachusetts FAR-28053 Eddison Ramsaran, M.D. v. March 11, 2021 Supreme Candace Lapidus Sloane, Judicial Court M.D., Chair, Board of (Discretionary Registration in Medicine, and Review Denied) Joseph P. Carrozza, Jr., M.D. iti