CRISDON v. NJ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's 16 First MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED. Clerk is directed to mark this matter as CLOSED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 04/13/2011. (tf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MYRON N. CRISDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NJ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 10-2911(NLH)(AMD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

APPEARANCES:
MYRON N. CRISDON
531 N. 7TH ST.
CAMDEN, NJ 08102
Appearing pro se
JENIFER LOUISE CAMPBELL
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DIVISION OF LAW
R.J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
25 W. MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 112
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of defendant
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of
defendant, New Jersey Department of Education, to dismiss pro se
plaintiff Myron Crisdon’s complaint against it; and
Plaintiff claiming in his complaint that defendant failed to
issue him a high school diploma after he met the high school
graduation requirements in the spring of 2006, and as a result,
plaintiff was unable to pursue his dream of becoming a professional
basketball player; and
Plaintiff claiming that defendant’s failure to issue him his

high school diploma violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights;1 and
Plaintiff demanding $100 million in damages, and $50 million
in punitive damages from defendant; and
Defendant having moved to dismiss2 plaintiff’s complaint
because it is barred on the basis of sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution;3 and
The Court agreeing with defendant that because defendant is
the state of New Jersey, plaintiff’s claims against it are barred

1

Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over his
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2

When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept all
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v.
Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). A district court, in
weighing a motion to dismiss, asks “‘not whether a plaintiff will
ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer
evidence to support the claim.’” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127
S. Ct. 1955, 1969 n.8 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416
U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009) (“Our decision in Twombly expounded the
pleading standard for ‘all civil actions’ . . . .”). A court
need not credit either “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions”
in a complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss. In re
Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d
Cir. 1997).
The defendant bears the burden of showing that no
claim has been presented. Hedges v. U.S., 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d
Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926
F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)).
3

Even though plaintiff brought his case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331, it may have also been brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1983. If that were the case, plaintiff’s claims would
also be barred because defendant is not a “person” under § 1983.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)
(explaining that a state is not a “person” within the meaning of
§ 1983).
2

by the Eleventh Amendment, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342
(1979) (reaffirming “that a suit in federal court by private
parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from
public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment”); Employees of Dept. of Public Health & Welfare v. Dept.
of Public Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 280 (1973) (stating that
even though the text of the Eleventh Amendment expressly bars suits
in federal court against states by citizens of other states and
foreign states, the Amendment has been broadly interpreted to
provide immunity to an unconsenting state for “suits brought in
federal courts by her own citizens as well”); Melo v. Hafer, 912
F.2d 628, 636 (3d Cir. 1990) (finding that the Eleventh Amendment
has been interpreted to bar suits for monetary damages by private
parties in federal court against a state, state agencies, or state
employees sued in their official capacity); and
The Court noting that plaintiff has not opposed defendant’s
motion;4
4

A week following the filing of his complaint on June 14,
2010, and prior to effecting service of his complaint onto
defendant, plaintiff had filed motions for summary judgment and
for the expedited consideration of his summary judgment motion.
Prior, however, to service of his complaint upon defendant, prior
to defendant’s ability to respond to plaintiff’s complaint or
motions, and prior to the Court’s ability to address plaintiff’s
motions, plaintiff filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals. During the pendency of plaintiff’s appeal, during
which this case was stayed, defendant was served with plaintiff’s
complaint, and on October 4, 2010, defendant filed the instant
motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On February 14, 2011,
3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY on this 13th day of April, 2011
ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [16] is GRANTED;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this
matter as CLOSED.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
At Camden, New Jersey

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

the Third Circuit issued a mandate dismissing plaintiff’s appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. On March 2, 2011, this Court entered
an Order denying plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and
expedited review, and provided plaintiff with thirty days to file
his opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff has not
responded to the Court’s Order.
4