Syed Afir Jaffery M.D. v. Atlantic County Prosecutors Of

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 16-2115
________________
SYED AFIR JAFFERY, M.D.,
Appellant
v.
THE ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE;
JAMES P. MCCLAIN, individually and in his capacity as the Atlantic County
Prosecutor; DANIELLE S. BUCKLEY; individually, and in her capacity as
Assistant Atlantic County Prosecutor; EGG HARBOR CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT; RAYMOND DAVIS, Individually and as Chief of the Egg Harbor
Police Department; DETECTIVE HEATHER STUMPF
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 1-15-cv-06937)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 20, 2017
Before: AMBRO, VANASKIE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 19, 2017)
________________
OPINION *
________________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge
Appellant Syed Afir Jaffery is under indictment in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Atlantic County, on charges arising out of alleged sexual misconduct towards
patients at his neurology practice. Jaffery filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988
against New Jersey prosecutors and police officers in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and seeking damages and an injunction
against further prosecution. The District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on
the ground of Younger abstention. We will affirm. 1
I.
Jaffery is a licensed physician who practiced neurology in Egg Harbor, New
Jersey. In December 2014, several of Jaffery’s patients informed the Egg Harbor
Township Police Department that Jaffery touched them inappropriately during medical
exams. On December 23, 2014, Egg Harbor Police Detective Heather Stumpf filed
Complaints based on the allegations of three of Jaffery’s former patients, and a New
Jersey state judge found probable cause and issued warrants for Jaffery’s arrest. Jaffery
was arrested the same day at his medical offices. On February 25, 2015, thirty-two
additional Complaints were issued based on incidents with numerous other patients. The
Complaints charged Jaffery with various crimes, including aggravated criminal sexual
contact, harassment, lewdness, and sexual assault.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction to
review the District Court’s Younger abstention order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Lui v.
Comm’n on Adult Entertainment Establishments, 369 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2004).
2
On September 17, 2015, prior to issuance of an indictment, Jaffery filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, the Atlantic County Prosecutor James P. McClain,
Assistant Atlantic County Prosecutor Danielle S. Buckley, the Egg Harbor Police
Department, Egg Harbor Police Chief Raymond Davis, and Egg Harbor Detective
Heather Stumpf. Jaffery asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and alleged
the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution violated the Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jaffery sought compensatory
and punitive damages, and an injunction against further prosecution.
On September 18, 2015, Jaffery sought an ex parte temporary restraining order
against defendants. The District Judge declined to issue the temporary restraining order
based on Younger abstention. Jaffery subsequently filed an Amended Complaint and a
motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants.
In the New Jersey criminal action, on September 30, 2015, an Atlantic County
grand jury returned a nineteen-count indictment against Jaffery, including eighteen
counts of fourth degree criminal sexual contact, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-
3(b), and one count of second degree sexual assault, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann.
§ 2C:14-2(c)(1). 2 The indictment was based on nineteen alleged incidents with eighteen
different victims.
After issuance of the indictment in the state action, defendants in the federal action
2
Following a three-week jury trial, on July 25, 2016, Jaffery was acquitted on the charges
in the indictment relating to his conduct with one patient. The remaining charges of the
indictment are pending and have not yet been tried.
3
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) on grounds of Younger abstention. On April 8, 2016, the District
Judge issued a Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
grounds of Younger abstention. Jaffery filed this timely appeal.
II.
Under Younger v. Harris, federal courts may abstain in certain circumstances from
exercising jurisdiction over a claim where resolution of the claim would interfere with an
ongoing state criminal proceeding. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We exercise plenary review over
the legal determination of whether the requirements for abstention have been met, and if
those requirements are met, we review the district court’s decision to abstain for an abuse
of discretion. Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Township of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 408 (3d
Cir. 2005).
Under Younger, “federal courts should abstain from enjoining state criminal
prosecutions because of principles of comity and federalism, unless certain extraordinary
circumstances exist.” Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d 143, 154 (3d Cir. 2004). Younger
abstention is appropriate if “(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in
nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state
proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.” Schall v. Joyce, 885
F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 1989). If these three requirements are met, abstention may
nonetheless be inappropriate if the federal plaintiff can establish: “(1) the state
proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some
4
other extraordinary circumstances exist, such as proceedings pursuant to a flagrantly
unconstitutional statute, such that deference to the state proceeding will present a
significant and immediate potential of irreparable harm to the federal interests asserted.”
Id.
The District Court correctly concluded the three requirements for Younger
abstention are met in this case. There are ongoing state criminal proceedings in the
Superior Court of New Jersey that are judicial in nature, the state proceedings implicate
the important state interest in prosecuting criminal behavior, and the state proceedings
provide Jaffery an opportunity to raise federal constitutional defenses to prosecution. See
Younger, 401 U.S. at 51–52.
Jaffery argues Younger abstention is nonetheless inappropriate because the state
prosecution is being undertaken in bad faith and without probable cause. “‘Bad faith’ in
this context generally means that a prosecution has been brought without a reasonable
expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 126 n.6
(1975); see also Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1065 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Three factors
that courts have considered in determining whether a prosecution is commenced in bad
faith or to harass are: (1) whether it was frivolous or undertaken with no reasonably
objective hope of success; (2) whether it was motivated by the defendant’s suspect class
or in retaliation of the defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights; and (3) whether it was
conducted in such a way as to constitute harassment and an abuse of prosecutorial
discretion, typically through the unjustified and oppressive use of multiple prosecutions.”
(citations omitted)). Jaffery argues this standard is met because (1) the investigating
5
detective did not consult with a medical expert prior to bringing criminal charges, (2)
Jaffery was acquitted on two of the charges of the indictment involving one of the alleged
victims following trial, and (3) some witnesses made allegedly racially-biased comments
in interviews with the police.
The District Court correctly concluded Jaffery’s allegations, taken as true, do not
demonstrate the state prosecution was undertaken in bad faith. Jaffery disputes the quality
of the state’s evidence supporting the criminal prosecution, but has not demonstrated
there is no reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction. See Kugler, 421 U.S. at
126 n.6. Jaffery cites no authority for a constitutional requirement that police and
prosecutors retain a medical expert prior to prosecuting a doctor for allegedly criminal
actions that occur in the course of medical treatment. 3 Moreover, Jaffery’s acquittal on
some charges does not rise to the level of demonstrating multiple unjustified and
oppressive unsuccessful prosecutions. Finally, the witness statements identified by
Jaffery alone do not demonstrate the police and the prosecutors in this case are
prosecuting him because of his race, rather than because of his alleged conduct.
Alternatively, Jaffery argues extraordinary circumstances warranting federal
intervention exist because he was unable to raise his federal constitutional claims in state
court prior to trial. The District Court correctly determined Jaffery had failed to
demonstrate any procedural bar to raising his federal claims and defenses in the state
court proceeding. “[O]rdinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair
3
Jaffery’s reliance on N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-27, which requires an affidavit of merit
in medical malpractice actions, is misplaced. We decline to apply this statute, which
expressly applies only to civil tort claims, in a criminal context.
6
and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights.” Kugler, 421
U.S. at 124. Jaffery has not shown the state court is “incapable of fairly and fully
adjudicating the federal issues,” see Kugler, 421 U.S. at 124, as most of the charges
against Jaffery have not been tried, nor has Jaffery exhausted his state rights of appeal. In
addition, to the extent Jaffery seeks dismissal of the charges against him as a result of
constitutional violations, such relief is only available through a writ of habeas corpus. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973).
III.
For the foregoing reasons and those provided in the District Court’s opinion, we
will affirm the dismissal of Jaffery’s complaint on Younger abstention grounds. In light
of this decision, we do not reach Jaffery’s remaining arguments regarding his motion for
partial summary judgment and motion for a preliminary injunction.
7