Joey Jackson v. Mary Domzalski

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. BLD-124. The request for appointment of counsel and all other pending requests are denied.

Case: 14-3963

Document: 003111897173

Page: 1

BLD-124

Date Filed: 03/09/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3963
___________
JOEY W. JACKSON,
Appellant
v.

MS. MARY DOMZALSKI, Case Manager from State of NJ Department of Human
Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-13-cv-04462)
District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 26, 2015
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 9, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Joey Jackson appeals the District Court’s order granting the
defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Case: 14-3963

Document: 003111897173

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/09/2015

§ 1291 and exercise a plenary standard of review. See Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch.
Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). For the reasons set forth below, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P.
10.6.
Jackson suffers from a mental disability and is under the care of the New Jersey
Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). He filed a complaint in the District
Court, alleging that the DDD has violated his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide him with a sufficient menu of recreational
and social activities and offering him only limited transportation services. The District
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that Jackson had failed to state a plausible claim for
relief.
We agree with the District Court. Under the ADA, “no qualified individual with a
disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be
denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Jackson’s complaint
does not show that he has been the victim of discrimination or otherwise has been denied
benefits. See, e.g., Cohon ex rel. Bass v. N.M. Dep’t of Health, 646 F.3d 717, 729 (10th
Cir. 2011) (denying claim that individual’s rights under the ADA were violated because

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2

Case: 14-3963

Document: 003111897173

Page: 3

Date Filed: 03/09/2015

she was not provided with services to support her “goals of self-direction and selfdetermination”). As we explained in affirming the District Court’s previous dismissal of
a related action filed by Jackson, “the documents [Jackson has] attached suggest that the
state agencies are attempting to meet his needs, although perhaps not as quickly or
comprehensively as he would prefer.” Jackson v. N.J., 465 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir.
2012) (non-precedential). Likewise, he is not “guaranteed twenty-four-hour
transportation to locations of his choosing.” Id. Thus, the District Court did not err in
dismissing Jackson’s complaint. See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009).1
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.2 Because
the appeal lacks merit, Jackson’s request for counsel is denied. All other pending
requests are also denied.

1

Given that the hundreds of documents Jackson has filed in the District Court and this
Court have failed to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, we are satisfied that amendment to
the complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly
dismissed the complaint without providing leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
2

We interpret the Magistrate Judge’s March 3, 2014 order to rule that it was unnecessary
to appoint a representative to assist Jackson pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. This conclusion was within the Court’s discretion. See generally
Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 306 (3d Cir. 2012).
3