BRAXTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 2

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 5/8/2015. (eaj)

*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

STANLEY VAN BRAXTON,
Civil Action No. 15-2787 (MAS)
Plaintiff,

v.

OPINION

STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

SHIPP, District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Stanley Van Braxton ("Plaintiff') seeks to bring this action in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The Court

has reviewed his application and he will be granted in forma pauperis status.
At this time, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). For reasons stated below, the Court dismisses
the Complaint.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint is almost devoid of any factual allegations. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants
New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJDOC") and New Jersey State Parole Board ("NJSPB")
(collectively referred to as "Defendants") violated his federal and state constitutional rights by
false imprisonment, when Plaintiff was an inmate at Bayside State Prison in Leesburg, New Jersey.

(ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff appears to assert that his original sentence was scheduled to end on
May 28, 2012, but Defendants wrongfully kept him in prison until April 18, 2013. Id. The
Complaint does not contain any allegations showing: (1) the details of his original conviction and
sentence, (2) the circumstances that led to his alleged false imprisonment, (3) any administrative
or state court proceedings that Plaintiff pursued, or (4) the state officials who were involved in the
alleged false imprisonment. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants intentionally injured him and caused
him serious mental and physical anguish and stress. Id. at 4.

II.

DISCUSSION

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, "[t]he 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 State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Section
1983 does not override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332,
338 (1979). This Court has repeatedly held that NJSPB is a state agency for the purposes of the
Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Isabella, No. 12-2662, 2014 WL 282757,
at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2014); Dastas v. Ross, No. 11-4062, 2012 WL 665630, at *1 n.4 (D.N.J. Feb.
29, 2012); McCargo v. Hall, No. 11-533, 2011 WL 6725613, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2011); Davis
v. NJ. Dep 't of Corr., No. 10-6007, 2010 WL 4878748, at *6 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2010). This Court
has also repeatedly held that NJDOC is a state agency entitled to immunity. See, e.g., Bell v.
Holmes, No. 13-6955, 2015 WL 851804, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2015); Homan v. NJ. Dep 't of
Corr., No. 13-1466 (MAS), 2014 WL 4273304, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014); Wimbush v. Jenkins,

2

No. 13-4654, 2014 WL 1607354, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2014); Love v. Dep't of Corr., No. 131050, 2014 WL 46776, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2014).
Because Defendants are both state agencies immune from § 1983 suits, all claims against
Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court will allow Plaintiff, within 60 days
from the date of entry of the accompanying Order, to amend the Complaint consistent with the
holdings of this Opinion. Plaintiff should assert in the amended complaint all relevant facts known
to him relating to his claims, in order to avoid future dismissals.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, all claims against Defendants are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date of entry of the accompany
Order to amend the Complaint.

Dated:

z;(<f {l(

3