transfer to another facility because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether that official was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious medical needs). According to Plaintiff, he should be allowed to take discovery on this issue to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support his § 1983 claim that Defendant Frey could be liable as a prison official acting under color of state law, separate and apart from her role as a medical provider. In cases discussing the role of the medical malpractice tribunal, the Massachusetts courts have emphasized that the tribunal procedure is appropriate only where there are disputed “issue[s] of medical malpractice, error or mistake.” Leininger v. Franklin Medical Center, 404 Mass. 245, 534 N.E.2d 1151, 1152 (1989) (<HOLDING>). In fact, the Leininger court stated, “[w]e
holding heck applicable to claims that implicate the validity of civil commitment proceedings holding that claims for civil rights violation and false imprisonment arising out of civil commitment are not appropriate for tribunal review holding that for an initial civil commitment the state has the burden of proof holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that the possibility that a sex offender could face civil commitment under a state statute was a collateral consequence because civil commitment does not flow automatically from the plea