Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-24-02513/USCOURTS-ca3-24-02513-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-2513

__________

DAVIS L. YERGER,

Appellant

v.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY ASSISTANCE OFFICE;

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 4-24-cv-01268)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 3, 2024

Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 9, 2024)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Davis Yerger appeals pro se from the District Court’s order adopting the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) in its entirety, overruling his 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 24-2513 Document: 9 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024
2

objection, and dismissing with prejudice his complaint brought against Northumberland 

County Assistance Office (CAO) and the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services 

(DHS).1 We will affirm, with one modification.

Yerger previously applied for and was denied Medical Assistance and Home and 

Community-Based Services (HCBS) benefits from the CAO in 2023. His appeal was also 

denied without prejudice after a hearing because the two homes he owns make him 

ineligible for the programs. He subsequently filed this pro se complaint alleging that the 

CAO violated the Social Security Act of 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a), and Goldberg v. 

Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), when it “discriminated against [him] by not providing 

benefits” and failed to provide him with a transcript of the appeal hearing. Complaint at 

1-2. He seeks $80,000 in retroactive homecare benefits. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R 

recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the CAO’s Eleventh 

Amendment immunity. Yerger timely filed an objection to the R&R asserting only that 

his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated because he has a right to 

state and federal benefits. The District Court adopted the R&R in its entirety, overruled 

Yerger’s objection, and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo whether a 

party is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Maliandi v. Montclair State 

1 The R&R notes that the District Court clerk “mistakenly docketed Northumberland 

CAO and DHS as two separate defendants. . . . [though] the body of the complaint 

contains no reference to DHS at all.” R&R at 2 n.2. Our resolution of this case is the 

same regardless of whether Yerger sued one or both parties.

Case: 24-2513 Document: 9 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2024
3

Univ., 845 F.3d 77, 82 (3d Cir. 2016). Under the Eleventh Amendment, a civil suit may 

not be brought in federal court against a state, a state agency, or a state department, 

regardless of the relief sought, unless the state waives its immunity from suit. Pennhurst 

State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Pennsylvania DHS and, by 

extension one of its local offices, Northumberland CAO2 are entitled to Eleventh 

Amendment immunity because they are agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

which has not waived its immunity here. See Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 

F.3d 249, 254-55, n.5 (3d Cir. 2010).3

However, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice when it should 

have dismissed it without prejudice, because Eleventh Amendment immunity is a 

“threshold, nonmerits issue that does not entail any assumption by the court of 

substantive law-declaring power.” Merritts v. Richards, 62 F.4th 764, 772 (3d Cir. 2023) 

(internal quotations omitted). We will therefore modify the District Court’s dismissal of 

this complaint to reflect that it is dismissed without prejudice. See Curry v. Yachera, 835 

F.3d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 2016).

2 See Lewis v. Alexander, 685 F.3d 325, 337 (3d Cir. 2012) (“The DPW operates county 

assistance offices throughout the Commonwealth to serve the citizens of Pennsylvania.”).

3 Though the Betts opinion refers to the Pennsylvania “Department of Public Welfare” 

(or “DPW”) and not DHS, they are one and the same—the name of the department was 

changed in 2014. See 62 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. § 103; St. Luke’s Health Network, Inc. 

v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 967 F.3d 295, 298 (3d Cir. 2020) (referring to “the Department 

of Human Services (formerly the Department of Public Welfare)”).

Case: 24-2513 Document: 9 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2024
4

In view of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment as modified.

Case: 24-2513 Document: 9 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/09/2024