WALKER v. ROMAN et al

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 5/11/2015. (tf, n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

Rodney Walker,
Plaintiff,
v.

SCO. ROMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 14-1182(RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, District Judge:
On February 27, 2014, the Court administratively terminated
this case after dismissing the claims against Defendants Roman
and Zenyuk without prejudice, and dismissing the claims as to
remaining Defendants with prejudice. (Order, ECF No. 3.)
Plaintiff was permitted to reopen the case by filing an amended
complaint, attempting to cure the deficiencies in his original
pleading. (Id.) On April 2, 2014, the Clerk received Plaintiff’s
amended complaint. (ECF No. 4.)
At this time, the Court must review the amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to determine whether it
should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to

1

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.
In this Court’s Opinion on February 27, 2014, the Court
explained that Plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief to
prohibit Defendants from retaliating against him for bringing
this action was facially unripe and would be dismissed. (ECF
Nos. 2 at 4-5 (citing Dawson v. Frias, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
30513 at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2010)(“speculation as to what might
or might not happen in the future” cannot serve as a basis for a
valid claim)(citing Rouse v. Pauliilo, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
17225 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2006)(dismissing speculative claim as to
hypothetical future retaliation and citing Kirby v. Siegelman,
195 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999)); Pilkey v. Lappin, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 44418, at *45 (D.N.J. June 26, 2006)(“Plaintiff’s
[anxieties] fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted’); Patterson v. Lilley, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11097
(S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2003)(defendants could only be found liable
for violations ensuing from an existing condition, not a
speculative future injury.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint has
not cured this deficiency; therefore, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff’s application, in his amended complaint, for
injunctive relief based on hypothetical future retaliation.
Given that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief will be
dismissed as unripe, Plaintiff’s only remaining claims against
2

Defendants in their official capacities are claims for monetary
damages. Such claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and
will be dismissed. See Garden State Elec. Inspection Servs. v.
Levin, 144 F. App’x 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2005)(suits brought
against state officials acting in their official capacities are
to be treated as suits against the employing government agency);
see also Walker v. Beard, 244 F. App’x 439, 440 (3d Cir.
2007)(the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against a state and
its agencies in federal court that seek monetary damages).
Remaining in the amended complaint are Plaintiff’s claims
for monetary damages against Defendants Roman and Zenyuk in
their individual capacities. Having screened the amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2)(B),
these claims will be allowed to proceed, and Defendants will be
ordered to answer.
An appropriate Order follows.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3