Gardner v. State of New Mexico

2

_________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

The New Mexico Board of Dental Health revoked William Gardner's dental license. A few years later he asked the Board to reinstate his license. The Board refused, and Mr. Gardner filed this lawsuit.¹He sued the State of New Mexico, some of its agencies, and individual employees of those agencies. He sought various forms of relief, including reinstatement of his dental license.

The district court dismissed the case without prejudice for two reasons. First, the court concluded that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred Mr. Gardner's claims. Second, it held that the Younger doctrine²required it to abstain from hearing the case because Mr. Gardner's appeal of the Board's decision was pending in state court.

We review the district court's rulings de novo. See Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Anderson, 119 F.4th 732, 735 (10th Cir. 2024) (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Stork, 811 F.3d 390, 394 (10th Cir. 2016) (Younger abstention).

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

3

We begin with immunity. Mr. Gardner presents no challenge to the district court's conclusion that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred his claims against New Mexico and its agencies. He has therefore waived any challenge to that conclusion. See Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012). As for the individual state officials, he argues that the claims against them can proceed under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). To evaluate this argument, we

"conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective."

Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

We agree that Ex parte Young permits the district court to hear the claims against the state officials seeking reinstatement of Mr. Gardner's license. These claims allege an ongoing constitutional violation—the continued denial of reinstatement without due process. And they seek prospective injunctive relief ordering his reinstatement. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims seeking this relief.³See Meiners v. Univ. of Kan., 359 F.3d 1222, 1232-33 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that a claim seeking reinstatement of employment fell outside of Eleventh Amendment immunity); Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487,

4

495-96 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that a claim seeking admission to medical school fell outside of Eleventh Amendment immunity).

Seeing things differently, the district court held that Ex parte Young did not apply to Mr. Gardner's "request for reinstatement of his dental license" because "it is a request for relief from past alleged harms." R. at 224. But a claim can fit under Ex parte Young even if it seeks "to right a previous wrong." Opala v. Watt, 454 F.3d 1154, 1158 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Mr. Gardner has shown that Ex parte Young allows him to seek reinstatement, he fails to show that the doctrine allows him to pursue other forms of relief. He argues on appeal that the doctrine allows him to pursue claims seeking a judgment declaring that the Board's procedures violate the Fourteenth Amendment and seeking injunctive relief requiring a hearing on his reinstatement application. The problem is that his amended complaint never sought that relief.⁴Our limited role is "to correct errors made by the district court in assessing the legal theories presented to it." Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011). We decline to opine about forms of relief not included in the complaint.⁵

5

Having eluded the Eleventh Amendment, Mr. Gardner's claims seeking to reinstate his license must clear yet another hurdle—Younger abstention. The Younger doctrine requires federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction when three conditions are present. Columbian Fin. Corp., 811 F.3d at 394-95. One condition is the existence of an ongoing state proceeding. Id. at 394. The district court determined this condition was satisfied by Mr. Gardner's appeal of the reinstatement denial to a state district court.

Mr. Gardner tells us on appeal, however, that the state court dismissed his appeal. Our review of the public state-court records confirms the dismissal.⁶And although Mr. Gardner filed a notice of appeal, several months have passed, and we see no record of a pending appeal. It thus appears the state proceedings have concluded. And so Younger no longer requires the district court to abstain from hearing Mr. Gardner's claims seeking reinstatement of his license. See id. at 395. Mr. Gardner devotes much of his brief to the merits of his claims. But the district court limited its analysis to jurisdictional issues, so we will too. To the extent Mr. Gardner contends the district court should have addressed the merits despite its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction, he is mistaken. Once the court determined it mentioned in the complaint aside from reinstatement. He has therefore waived any challenge to the district court's conclusion that those other forms of relief were barred under the Eleventh Amendment. See Toevs, 685 F.3d at 911.

6

lacked jurisdiction, it had no authority to decide the merits. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Gr. Brit. PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). * * *

We grant Mr. Gardner's motion to proceed without prepaying costs or fees. We deny his motion to disqualify opposing counsel; no attorney has appeared on the defendants' behalf in this appeal. We vacate the portion of the district court's judgment dismissing Mr. Gardner's claims against the state officials seeking reinstatement of his dental license, and we remand for further proceedings. We otherwise affirm.

Entered for the Court

Gregory A. Phillips

Circuit Judge