RATLIFF v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE et al

Filing 44

OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/28/2013. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHAYONE RATLIFF,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

THE PLAINTIFF, Shayone Ratliff, who is represented by counsel,
brings the action against, among others, former New Jersey Attorney
General Anne Milgram, former Deputy Attorney General Asha Vaghela
(s/h/a Asha Vaghella), and Deputy Attorney General Erik Daab (s/h/a
Erik Daabe) (collectively, “the Individual Defendants”).
entry no. 28, 3d Am. Compl.)

(See dkt.

Ratliff asserts claims against the

Individual Defendants for alleged violations of his state and
federal constitutional rights.

(See id.)

The Individual

Defendants have been sued in both their personal and official
capacities.

(See id.)

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS now move to dismiss the claims
asserted against them that concern alleged violations of Ratliff’s
federal constitutional rights (“Federal Claims”), based on the
doctrine of immunity.

(See dkt. entry no. 39, Notice of Mot.; dkt.

entry no. 39-1, Br. in Supp. at 7-11.)
opposition to the Motion.1

Ratliff has not filed

The Court has thus considered the

Motion without oral argument, see L.Civ.R. 78.1(b), and analyzed
the Third Amended Complaint substantively in light of the arguments
raised in support of the Motion.

See Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz,

951 F.2d 29, 29-30 (3d Cir. 1991).
THE COURT has concluded, with respect to the Federal Claims
and pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, that the Individual
Defendants enjoy immunity insofar as they have been named in their
official capacities.

See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991)

(“Suits against state officials in their official capacity . . .
should be treated as suits against the State.”); Kadonsky v. New
Jersey, 188 Fed.Appx. 81, 83-84 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[C]laims against
the State of New Jersey . . . are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment[.]”).

(See also dkt. entry no. 41, 6-5-13 Op. (finding

1

Ratliff’s opposition to the Motion was originally due on May
20, 2013. (See dkt. text entry following dkt. entry no. 39 (noting
that Motion was returnable on June 3, 2013).) See also L.Civ.R.
7.1(c), (d)(2). On May 21, 2013, Ratliff filed an untimely request
for additional time to oppose the Motion; the untimely request was
granted, and the Motion was made returnable on July 1, 2013. (See
dkt. entry no. 40, 5-21-13 Letter.) See also L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(5).
Opposition papers were thus due two weeks ago on June 17, 2013.
(See dkt. text entry following dkt. entry no. 40.) See also
L.Civ.R. 7.1(c), (d)(2). Ratliff nonetheless failed to oppose or
otherwise respond to the Motion.
2

here that the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General enjoyed
immunity and dismissing claims raised against that entity).)
THE COURT also concludes, with respect to the Federal Claims,
that the Individual Defendants enjoy immunity insofar as they have
been named in their personal capacities.
THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS enjoy -- with respect to the Federal
Claims -- immunity insofar as they have each been sued personally.
State officials may in some circumstances be held personally liable
for actions taken in their official capacities.
502 U.S. at 27.

See, e.g., Hafer,

Here, however, the Individual Defendants enjoy

immunity from the Federal Claims because the acts alleged in the
Third Amended Complaint arose from and relate directly to the
Individual Defendants’ official prosecutorial capacities.

See Van

de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343-46 (2009); Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-29 (1976); Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d
1454, 1463-64 (3d Cir. 1992) (“The decision to initiate a
prosecution is at the core of a prosecutor’s judicial role.

A

prosecutor is absolutely immune when making this decision, even
where he acts without a good faith belief that any wrongdoing has
occurred.

Harm to a falsely-charged defendant is remedied by

safeguards built into the judicial system . . . .”) (citations
omitted); Nemes v. Korngut, No. 08-2814, 2008 WL 5401609, at *9
(D.N.J. Dec. 24, 2008) (holding that deputy attorney generals were
3

“immune from damages for actions taken in their official
prosecutorial capacity”).

The Court thus intends to grant the

Motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the Federal Claims
asserted against the Individual Defendants.
THE COURT also intends to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
to the extent that it may be construed to assert claims against the
defendant Middlesex County Prosecutors Office (“MCPO”), sua sponte.
Ratliff stipulated to the dismissal of any claims asserted against
the MCPO in August of 2012.
Stipulation of Dismissal.)

(See dkt. entry no. 20, 8-6-12
Furthermore, insofar as the action may

be construed to concern the MCPO -- insofar as the MCPO is named in
the Third Amended Complaint -- the action has been pending for more
than 120 days without Ratliff having taken any proceedings against
the MCPO.

See L.Civ.R. 41.1(a).

THE COURT will deny the Motion to the extent that it addresses
claims asserted pursuant to state law against the Individual
Defendants (“State Claims”) without prejudice.

But the Court, in

doing so, intends to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the State Claims.

(See 3d Am. Compl. at 2 (introductory

paragraph), 5-6 (¶ 24), 7 (¶ 31), 10 (¶ 40), 13 (7th Cause of
Action).)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d

117, 128 (3d Cir. 2013).

The Court will dismiss the State Claims

4

without prejudice, and grant Ratliff leave to pursue those claims
in state court within thirty days.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

THE COURT, for good cause appearing, will issue a separate
Order and Judgment.

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

June 28, 2013

5