Matthew Jones v. Crisis Intervention Service



Download PDF
Case: 17-1585 Document: 003112597329 Page: 1 CLD-192 Date Filed: 04/19/2017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1585 ___________ MATTHEW JONES, Appellant v. CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 1:16-cv-00410) District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 13, 2017 Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 19, 2017) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Proceeding pro se, Mathew Jones filed suit against Crisis Intervention Services (“CIS”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Listing five separate * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Case: 17-1585 Document: 003112597329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2017 incidents in 2015, Jones claimed that CIS, among other purportedly unlawful acts, falsely diagnosed him with mental illnesses, improperly removed Jones from his home, and administered medication to him without consent.1 For a cause of action, Jones relied on state tort law, federal criminal statutes, and the First and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For relief, Jones sought “$1,00,000 [sic].” CIS moved to dismiss Jones’s pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Jones then filed a motion for summary judgment. The District Court granted CIS’s motion and dismissed Jones’s complaint, determining that, insofar as Jones intended to raise constitutional claims, CIS was a state agency and was thus immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court determined that, insofar as Jones intended to raise state tort law or other nonconstitutional claims, subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the parties were non-diverse and no federal question was at issue. The District Court rejected Jones’s attempt to use federal criminal statutes as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the District Court determined that permitting Jones leave to amend would be futile. The District Court denied Jones’s motion for summary judgment as moot. This timely appealed followed.2 1 There appears to be some factual overlap between this action and others recently filed by Jones. See, e.g. Jones v. Crisis Intervention Services, CA No. 17-1584 (3d Cir.). 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the District Court’s grant of CIS’s motion to dismiss. See Maliandi v. Montclair State Univ., 845 F.3d 77, 82 (3d Cir. 2016); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2009). 2 Case: 17-1585 Document: 003112597329 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2017 We will summarily affirm because the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. We agree with the District Court’s disposition of CIS’s motion to dismiss. See P. R. Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993) (“Absent waiver, neither a State nor agencies acting under its control may ‘be subject to suit in federal court’ under the Eleventh Amendment”) (citation omitted); see also Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 69 (1989) (the State is not a “person” subject to § 1983); Robinson v. Danberg, 729 F. Supp. 2d 666, 675 (D. Del. 2010). We also agree with the District Court that Jones’s citation of various federal criminal statutes is not a basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to the extent that Jones sought to impose criminal liability on CIS, because he lacked standing to do so. See United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[T]he United States Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of all criminal cases within his or her district.”); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s refusal to permit Jones an opportunity to amend his complaint. Cf. Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175 (3d Cir. 2010). 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?