MCCARGO v. LOGAN HALL et al
Filing
11
OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 12/20/11. (dc, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
:
ROBERT MCCARGO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
Civil Action No.: 11-533 (ES)
:
LOGAN HALL, et al.
:
OPINION
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :
SALAS, District Judge
I.
Introduction
Before the Court is Defendant New Jersey State Parole Board’s (“Defendant” or “Parole
Board”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Robert McCargo’s (“Plaintiff” or “McCargo”) complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s
complaint for having failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court has
considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the present motion and
decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For
the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
II.
Background
While on parole, McCargo resided at Logan Hall, a rehabilitation facility located in
Newark, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 6). McCargo alleges that on November 1, 2010, he slipped and
fell on a “wet floor” resulting in “an injury to his right foot . . . and the tearing off of his right
toe.”1 (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18). Thereafter, Plaintiff asserts that he was denied medical care for a period
of five days. (Id. ¶ 19). Consequently, Plaintiff’s foot became black, numb, swollen, and
painfully infected. (Id. ¶ 21). Plaintiff sought a legal injunction in order to obtain medical
assistance. (Id. ¶ 23).
On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant action against the Parole Board, an entity
that McCargo contends “was responsible for [his] care and safety” as well as the “supervision of
its contractees, Logan Hall and Community Education Center, Inc.” (Id. ¶ 11). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages for alleged violations of federal and state laws.2 On April 5, 2011, the Parole
Board moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s complaint
“should be dismissed . . . insofar as it seeks money damages against a State entity.” 3 (Def.
Moving Br. at 4).
III.
Legal Standard
For a complaint to survive dismissal, it “must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Federal Rule of Civil
procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
1
At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s claim that he tore off his right toe is contradicted in his brief opposing
the Parole Board’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, McCargo states: “[Plaintiff] injured his foot and lost a toe nail.”
(Pl. Opp. Br. at 1).
2
Plaintiff has conceded that his “federal claims as to the . . . Parole Board, should be dismissed.” (Pl. Opp. Br. at 2).
Accordingly, Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Eight of Plaintiff’s Complaint are hereby dismissed with
prejudice. The Court further notes that with respect to Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action—a tort claim under New
Jersey Common Law—Plaintiff fails to allege any wrongdoing by the Parole Board. (See Compl. ¶¶ 45-48).
Indeed, Plaintiff is clear: “Defendant [sic], Logan Hall and [Community Education Center], as employer and
supervisor of its employees, are responsible for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff under the doctrine of
Respondeat Superior.” (Id. ¶ 47). Accordingly, Count Five will be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the
Court need only address Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action, which alleges violations of his rights under the New
Jersey State Constitution.
3
The remaining Defendants—Logan Hall, Community Education Center, Inc., T. Stockholm, J. Trabucco, and L.
Leslie—answered Plaintiff’s complaint on March 29, 2011. (See Docket Entry No. 3).
-2
grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
47 (1957).
When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “courts are required to
accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and to draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the non-moving party.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir.
2008) (citation omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). Courts are not required to
credit bald assertions or legal conclusions draped in the guise of factual allegations. See In re
Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429 (3d Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “[a]
pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
IV.
Analysis
In Count Seven,4 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for alleged violations of his rights
under the New Jersey Constitution.
Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Parole Board
“violated [his] rights . . . because they [sic] knew or should have known about the lack of
training and supervision of [the employees of Logan Hall and Community Education Center,
Inc.] . . . , [which] proximately caus[ed] [Plaintiff’s] harms . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 52). The issue
before the Court is whether Plaintiff has alleged “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
It is well settled that “[s]tate governments and their subdivisions are not amenable to suit
in federal court pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Edwards v. State of New
Jersey, No. 08-5617, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94372, at *5 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2009) (citing U.S.
4
For clarity, the Court notes that Count Seven of Plaintiff’s complaint is incorrectly numbered. Preceding Count
Seven is Count Five, thus Plaintiff appears to have skipped Count Six in drafting his complaint.
-3
Const, amd. 11; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)). It is also well settled that “a suit by
private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in a state
treasury is barred from federal court by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Eleventh Amendment
immunity is waived by the state itself or by federal statute.” Clay v. New Jersey State Parole
Bd., No. 08-723, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62074, at *10 (D.N.J. Jul. 29, 2008) (citing Edelman v.
Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974)); see Edwards, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94372, at *5 (“Since
Plaintiff seeks only damages here [ ], the Court must dismiss the . . . New Jersey State Parole
Board . . . .”); Brandolph v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 93-5145, 1993 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17504, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 1993) (holding that it is settled-law that the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole “is immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh
Amendment” where plaintiff seeks an award of monetary damages).
In light of this precedent, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed
because the Parole Board is protected from suit by sovereign immunity insofar as Plaintiff’s
complaint seeks money damages from a State entity.5 (Def. Moving Br. at 4; Def. Reply Br. at
1-2).
The Court finds the Parole Board’s argument persuasive for the following two reasons.
First, the Parole Board is an agency6 of the New Jersey state government, and thus not amenable
to suit in federal court under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.7 See Edwards, 2009 U.S. Dist.
5
Plaintiff appears to overlook this specific argument raised by the Parole Board as he fails to address it in his
opposition brief. (See Pl. Opp. Br. at 3-5).
6
See U.S. ex rel. Gainer v. New Jersey, 278 F. Supp. 127, 128 (D.N.J. 1967) (noting that “[t]he New Jersey Board of
Parole is an agency of the New Jersey state government.”).
7
The Court further notes that it appears, and the Plaintiff has not otherwise argued, that the Parole Board has not
expressly consented to being sued in this action. See Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673 (“In deciding whether a state [or
state agency] has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only
where stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as will leave no
room for any other reasonable construction.”) (citation and quotation omitted).
-4
LEXIS 94372, at *5 (dismissing plaintiff’s claim against the New Jersey State Parole Board in
part because “State governments and their subdivisions are not amenable to suit in federal court
pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”). Second, McCargo seeks an award of money
damages resulting from the alleged events of November 1, 2010. However, any monetary
damage imposed on the Parole Board would be directly paid from public funds in the state
treasury. For that reason, Plaintiff’s complaint—relating to the allegations against the Parole
Board—is barred under the Eleventh Amendment.8 See Clay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62074, at
*10 (D.N.J. Jul. 29, 2008) (citing Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663). Accordingly, the facts alleged, and
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, fail to establish a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
V.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff shall have
15 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Court’s Opinion. An appropriate
Order shall follow.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas
United States District Judge
8
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, “The Judicial power of the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
-5
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?