BROOKS v. BARNETT

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 5/31/2018. (sm)

tNOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NORRIS BROOKS,
Civil Action No. 18-1522 (CCC)
Plaintiff,
v.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BROOKE M. BARNETT, E$Q.,
Defendant.

CECCifi, District Judge.

This matter has come before the Court on a civil rights Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff
Norris Brooks pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1983. Because Plaintiff is proceeding informapauperis,

(see ECF No. 7), the Court must screen the Complaint to determine whether the case shall be

dismissed because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C.

§

l915(e)(2).
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs initial Complaint, because it named a single
defendant, Brooke M. Barnett, Esq., Plaintiffs counsel in a prior state criminal matter. (ECF No.
8 at 1.) The Court held that neither public defenders, nor private attorneys, are state actors liable
under

§

1983, because they are not persons acting under the color of law. (Id.) Plaintiff then

submitted an Amended Complaint, again naming a single defendant, the State of New Jersey.
(ECf No. lOat 1.)
The ELeventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, “[tJhe 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.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. As such, the Eleventh Amendment
protects states and their agencies and departments from suit in federal court regardless of the type
of relief sought. Pennhurst Stale $ch. and Hop. v. Hatderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); see P.R.
Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Meicalf& Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993) (holding that the Ex
parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity is inapplicable to “the States or their
agencies, which retain their immunity against all suits in federal court”). Civil rights claims under
42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 do not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. .Jordan, 440

U.S. 332, 338 (1979). As the State of New Jersey cannot be sued in federal court, the Amended
Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.
In the interest of justice, the Court will allow Plaintiff one last chance to perfect his
pleading. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. See Velazquez v.
Zicker/hose, No. 11-2459, 2014 WL 6611058, at

*

7 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2014) (dismissing with

prejudice after having afforded plaintiff three opportunities to perfect pleading); Donnelly v.
Option One Mortg. Corp., No. 11-7019,2014 WL 1266209, at *18 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2014) (same);
Thompson v. Keystone Human Seres. Corp., No. 09-2558, 2012 WL 398619, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Feb.
7, 2012) (denying leave to amend after three chances); see also Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that futility of amendment is a proper reason to deny
leave to amend).

Date:

i

Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

2