Shafik Wassef v. Dennis Tibben, No. 22-2442 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In this § 1983 lawsuit, Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop ongoing physician disciplinary proceedings in which the Iowa Board of Medicine (“the Board”), represented by the Attorney General of Iowa, charges Wassef with violating Iowa law by inappropriately accessing patient records during his residency at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (“UIHC”). The Board is responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Iowa and is authorized to discipline doctors who do not meet minimum practice standards established by the Board and by the Iowa Legislature. Plaintiff alleged the ongoing proceedings violate federal law -- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). The district court dismissed the action, concluding that it must abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The court also dismissed the due process claim because Plaintiff failed to exhaust state remedies and failed to plausibly allege a claim.
The Eighth Circuit modified the dismissal to be without prejudice, vacated the district court’s due process ruling, and granted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion To Substitute Parties. The court concluded the district court properly abstained under Younger. However, as the state disciplinary proceedings are ongoing, the court should have declined to reach the merits of the due process claim, which Plaintiff can litigate in the state proceedings. Accordingly, the court modified the dismissal to be without prejudice, which is usually the proper disposition when a court abstains under Younger.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop ongoing physician disciplinary proceedings; the district court dismissed the action, concluding that it must abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); the court also dismissed plaintiff's due process claim for failure to exhaust state remedies and failure to state a claim; plaintiff appeals. Held: the Board's ongoing physician disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff are quasi-criminal in nature, and thus qualify for Younger abstention as a matter of law; plaintiff's argument that the Department of Health and Human Services has exclusive authority to enforce HIPPA and that the Supremacy Clause precludes state officials from acting beyond their authority by determining whether plaintiff violated HIPPA is rejected as the federal standards do not provide a facially conclusive claim of complete federal preemption and therefore this is not an extraordinary circumstance that counsels against Younger abstention; the dismissal is modified to be without prejudice, leaving plaintiff free to assert his Section 1983 procedural due process claim in the pending disciplinary proceeding.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.