RATLIFF v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE et al

Filing 41

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/5/2013. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHAYONE RATLIFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4084 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

THE PLAINTIFF, Shayone Ratliff, who is represented by
counsel, brings this action to recover damages for violations of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and the New Jersey Civil Rights
Act (“NJCRA”).

(See dkt. entry no. 28, 3d Am. Compl.)

The

defendant New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (“NJOAG”) —
sued herein as New Jersey State Attorney Generals Office — moves
to dismiss the claims asserted against it, arguing that it (1)
“is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit”, and (2)
“is not regarded as a ‘person’ amenable to suit under [Section
1983], or the [NJCRA]”.

(Dkt. entry no. 35, NJOAG Br. at 2.)

THE NJOAG filed its motion (“NJOAG Motion”) on January 7,
2013.

(See generally dkt. entry no. 35.)

the NJOAG Motion was on February 4, 2013.
after dkt. entry no. 35.)

The return date for
(See unnumbered entry

The plaintiff has neither filed a

response to the NJOAG Motion, nor sought an extension of time to
file papers in response thereto.

THE DEFENDANTS Erik Daabe, Anne Milgram, and Asha Vaghella
(“Individual Defendants”) separately move to dismiss the claims
asserted against them.

(See generally dkt. entry no. 39,

Individual Defs. Br.)

The Individual Defendants filed their

motion (“Individual Defendants Motion”) on May 1, 2013.
generally dkt. entry no. 39.)

(See

On May 21, 2013, the plaintiff

sought an extension of time to respond to the Individual
Defendants Motion only.
at 1-4.)

(See dkt. entry no. 40, 5-21-13 Letter

The Court granted the plaintiff an extension of time as

to that motion on June 3, 2013.

(See unnumbered entry after dkt.

entry no. 40 (noting same).)
THE PLAINTIFF, in seeking an extension of time to respond to
the Individual Defendants Motion, has demonstrated that he is
actively monitoring the Court’s electronic docket for this
action.

Thus, the Court must assume that the plaintiff, who the

Court again notes is represented by counsel, (1) is aware of the
NJOAG Motion, (2) does not intend to respond to the NJOAG Motion,
and (3) concedes that the claims asserted against the NJOAG
should be dismissed.

Therefore, the NJOAG Motion will be

granted.
EVEN IF the plaintiff were not conceding that the claims
asserted against the NJOAG should be dismissed, the Court would
grant the NJOAG Motion on the merits.

Section 1983 enables a

plaintiff to bring a civil action against a “person” who caused a
2

deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law.
But the NJOAG is not considered to be a “person” subject to such
an action.

See Hawkins v. Sup. Ct. of N.J., 174 Fed.Appx. 683,

685 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming part of District Court order
dismissing claims asserted against NJOAG, as “neither the Supreme
Court of New Jersey nor the Office of the Attorney General for
the State of New Jersey is a ‘person’ subject to liability under
§ 1983”).

The Eleventh Amendment also bars Section 1983 claims

asserted against the NJOAG, as such claims are, in effect,
brought against the state itself.

See Kadonsky v. New Jersey,

188 Fed.Appx. 81, 83-84 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming part of
District Court judgment dismissing claims asserted against NJOAG
as barred by Eleventh Amendment).

New Jersey has not consented

to subject the NJOAG to this type of civil action, and immunity
here has not been abrogated.
THE NJOAG, as a New Jersey state agency, is also not a
“person” subject to liability as defined by the NJCRA.

See

N.J.S.A. §§ 1:1-2, 10:6-2(c); see also Didiano v. Balicki, 488
Fed.Appx. 634, 637-39 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming part of District
Court order determining New Jersey state agency is not a “person”
amenable to suit under either Section 1983 or NJCRA); Chapman v.
State of New Jersey, No. 08-4130, 2009 WL 2634888, at *3 (D.N.J.
Aug. 25, 2009) (stating claim asserted against New Jersey state
agency under NJCRA “is impermissible”); Fields v. Essex Cnty.

3

Prob. Dep’t, No. A-2879-09T3, 2011 WL 677255, at *2-3 (N.J.
App.Div. Feb. 28, 2011) (affirming part of Superior Court order
determining New Jersey state agency was not a “person” subject to
liability under Section 1983 or NJCRA).
THE COURT will issue an appropriate order and judgment
granting the NJOAG Motion.

The Individual Defendants Motion will

be separately addressed, when appropriate.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 5, 2013

4