Eddison Ramsaran v. Candace Lapidus Sloane, et al.

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 BO RIM initiate disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Ramsaran. As decided by this Court in its decision from Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993): 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