2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-21-2010 

# J o ey Ja ckson v

. D i v D ev D i s a bi lit ies P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-2825

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J oey J a ck s on v

. Div D ev Di s a

b i l it ie s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 567. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/5671 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 2825

___________ J OE Y W. J AC KS ON, A ppel l ant v. DI VI SI ON OF D EVELO PM ENTA L DI SABI LI TI ES

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 05366) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M aryL . C ooper

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember17, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember21, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Jo e yW . Ja c k so n a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g h is c o mp l a i n t . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.J acks on appar ent l yr efe r s t o t he D evel opm ent al l yD i s abl ed A s s i s t ance and B i l l of 1 R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 7 5 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t th is s tatu te d o e s n o t cr e a te s ub s t a nt i ve i nd i vi du a l r i gh t s . Se e Pe nn hu r s tSt a t e Sc h. & H os p. v. H a l de r man, 45 1 U. S. 1, 28 n. 21 ( 1981) J acks on l at ers ents om e 106 l et t er s t o t he D i s t r i ctC our toverthe cour s e of the 2 l i t i gat i on compl ai ni ng aboutvi r tual l yeveryas pectof hi s car e. H e al s o r epea t edl ycal l ed th e D istric t C o u rt C ler k a n d th e v a rio u s ju d g e s a ss ig n e d to th is c a se a n d re p e a ted ly appea r ed i n per s on att he C l erk’ s offi ce. T hi s conductl ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt o i s s ue an in ju n c tio n o n D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , p ro h ib iti n g Ja c k so n f ro m c a lli n g o r a p p e a rin g in p erso n at th e c o u rtu n ti l fu rth er o rde r an d d ir ec ti n g h im to co m m u n icate w ith the c o u rt (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 J acks on s uffe r s fr om a ment al di s abi l i t yand i s underthe ca r e of the N ew J er s ey D i vi s i on of D evel opm ent al D i s abi l i t i es ( “D D D ”) . H e fi l ed pr o s e a one - page c om pl ai nt agai ns tt he D D D , t o w hi ch he a t t ache d s ever al document s and a c overs heetci t i ng the A m e ri c a n s w ith D is a b iliti e s A c t o f 1 9 9 0 (“ A D A ” ) a n d th e “ C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 7 5 .” 1 T h e c o m p la in t a n d its a tta c h m e n ts c a n b e lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d to a s s e rt tw o c la im s . F i r s t , t h e c o mp l a i n ts t a t e s t h a tt h e DDD “ d e n i e d a n e me r g e n c yp l a c e me n t [ ] b e c a u s e o f my dual di agnos i s ” and thatJ acks on w ant s pl ace m ent“i n bet t ercar e hous i ng. ” Fr om a l ett er a ttac h e d to th e c o m p lain t, i t ap p e a rs th a t Ja c k so n so u g h t an e m e rg e n c ytra n sf e r f ro m h is hous i ng w i t h A l l i es , I nc. , t o an age ncycal l ed N H S on t he bas i s of uns peci fi ed “a bus e and negl ect . ” Second, J acks on s t at es i n the compl ai ntthathe w ant s a “pr ot ect i on or der , ” and at t ached a l et t er fr om t he N ew Jer seyD epart m ent of H um an S ervi ces Sp eci al R espon se U n it rep o rtin g th a t ith a d in v e stig a ted Ja c k so n ’s c o m p lain t ab o u t ab u se a n d f o u n d it u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d . T h u s , J a c k s o n a p p e a r s t o c o mp l a i n o f th e ma n n e ri n wh i c h th e DDD r es ol ved hi s compl ai nt s of abus e. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 onl yi n w r i t i ng. J acks on appea l ed thator der , butw e di s m i s s ed hi s appea l forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e hi s not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el y . J acks on v. D i v. of D evel opm ent al D isab il it ies, C . A . N o . 1 0 -18 5 9 (Jun e 6 , 2 0 1 0 ). W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 3 di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) de novo. See M ay erv. B el i chi ck, 605 F. 3d 223, 229 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . I n doi ng s o, “[w ] e mustacc eptal l fac tual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntas t rue, cons t rue the compl ai nti n t he l i ghtfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, and ul t i m at el ydet erm i ne w hetherpl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde ranyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt . ” I d. Pr o s e compl ai nt s ar e “‘ l i ber al l ycons t rued’ ” and “ ‘ hel d t o l es s s t r i ngents t andar ds t han form al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed byl aw y er s [. ] ’ ” Eri cks on v. Par dus , 551 U . S. 89, 94 ( 2007) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he compl ai nt , how ever , m us tcont ai n al l egat i ons perm i t t i ng “‘ t he r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hatt he def endanti s l i abl e forthe mi s conductal l eged. ’ ” M ay er , 605 F .3 d a t 2 3 0 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). In u n d e rta k in g o u r re v iew , w e m a yc o n sid e r e x h ib its at t ache d t o t he compl ai nt . See i d. W e mayal s o aff i rm on anygr ound s uppor t ed bythe rec o rd. S ee G ray so n v . M ay v iew S tat e H o sp . , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In addi t i on t o di s m i s s i ng J acks on’ s compl ai nt , the J une 14 or derdeni ed hi s r eques t s for couns el and var i ous form s of i nj unct i ve r el i ef. W e r evi ew both rul i ngs forabus e of di s cr et i on, s ee Tabr on v. G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147, 158 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( couns el ) ; M i l l erv. M i t chel l , 598 F. 3d 139, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( i nj unct i on) , and w e per cei ve none he r e. 3 T h e D D D fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss Jack so n ’s co m p lai n t un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ), ar gui ng t hati tfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d abs t ai n fr om hear i ng t he s ui tunderY oungerv. H arr i s , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) . B yor derent er ed J une 14, 2010, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on fors ever al r eas ons , i ncl udi ng the l egal i ns uffi ci ency of Jack son’s com plai nt. Jackson app eal s. 3 II. W e agr ee thatJ acks on’ s compl ai ntdoes nots t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe g ran ted, th o u g h fo r reaso n s so m ew h at diff ere n t th an tho se o n w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt r el i ed. A s t he D D D ar gues , J acks on’ s compl ai ntand i t s at t achment s — no m att erhowT o th e c o n tra ry , d o c u m e n ts a ttac h e d to lette rs th a t Ja c k so n h a s s e n t th is C o u rt in d ica te 4 t hathe has s i nce be en tr ans ferr ed aw ayfr om A l l i es as he or i gi nal l yr eques t ed. T hat tra n sf e r d o e s n o t re n d e r th is a p p e a l m o o t b e c a u se w e re a d Ja c k so n ’s f ili n g s to re q u e st a t r ans fert o a fa ci l i t ys om ew her e out s i de of N ew J er s ey , w hi ch fr om J acks on’ s fi l i ngs does notappea rt o have oc curr ed, buti tdoes confi r m thatther e i s no m er i tt o hi s cl ai m thathe h a s b e e n “ d e n ie d ” re a s s ig n m e n t, le t a lo n e o n th e b a s is o f h is d is a b ility. 4 lib e ra llyc o n stru e d

— d o n o t p e rm it a re a so n a b le in f e re n c e th a t th e D D D h a s e n g a g e d in anyact i onabl e conduc t . H i s s ol e as s ert i on i s thatthe D D D “deni ed a[ n] emer gency p l a c e me n t [ ] b e c a u s e o f myd u a l d i a g n o s i s . ” T h u s , h e a p p e a r s t o c l a i m th a tth e DDD di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m undert he A D A bydeny i ng hi m emer gencyr eas s i gnm enton t he bas i s of hi s di s abi l i t y . See 42 U . S. C . § 12132; C hamber s v. Sch. D i s t . of Phi l a. B d. of E duc. , 587 F. 3d 176, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . J acks on, how ever , has al l eged nothi ng r eas onabl ys ugges t i ng t hati tdi d, and the onl yi nfer ence r eas onabl yperm i t t ed bythe at t achment s t o hi s compl ai nti s t o t he contr ary . T hos e att achment s i ncl ude an O ct ober8, 2009 l et t erfr om t he D D D t o J acks on. T he l et t erdeni es J acks on’ s r eques tforemer gency r eas s i gnm enton t he gr ound t hathe i s noti n i m m i nentper i l , butencour ages hi m t o pur s ue r eas s i gnm entw i t h hi s cas e manageri n t he or di narycour s e. T hus , i tdoes notr ai s e an i n f e r e n c e t h a tt h e D D D d e n i e d J a c k s o n r e a s s i g n m e n to n th e b a s i s o f h i s d i s a b i l i t y. 4 N ordoes J acks on’ s compl ai ntperm i tthe i nfer ence thatthe D D D m aybe l i abl e for t he manneri n w hi ch i tr es ponded t o hi s compl ai nt s of abus e ( as s um i ng, w i t houtdeci di ng, t hatt her e maybe s om e l egal t heoryunderw hi ch the D D D ’ s conductm i ghtpot ent i al l ybe act i onabl e) . T he compl ai nti t s el f s eeks a “pr ot ect i on or der , ” buti tcont ai ns no actualT h e p re d o m in a n t th e m e o f Ja c k so n ’s le tters is th a t h e w a n ts to b e re a ss ig n e d to 5 hous i ng i n a di ffe r ents t at e. H e al s o compl ai ns aboutvi r tual l yeveryas pectof hi s car e, su c h a s a lleg a tio n s th a t sta f f a re “ laz y ,” ta lk o n th e ir c e llu lar p h o n e s, o r o th e rw ise f a il t o gi ve hi m t hei rundi vi ded att ent i on. W hi l e hi s l et t er s oft en i ncl ude as s ert i ons thats t aff “abus ed” a nd “negl ect ed” hi m , he makes no s peci fi c col or abl e al l egat i ons i n t hatr egar d. 5 al l egat i ons i n t hatr egar d. I ns t ead, i tat t ache s a J une 11, 2009 l et t erfr om the Speci al R es pons e U ni ts t at i ng t hati ti nves t i gat ed J acks on’ s compl ai ntof abus e and thatthe document aryand t es t i m oni al evi dence i tr evi ew ed s how ed the compl ai ntt o be uns ubs t ant i at ed. J acks on has al l eged nothi ng r ai s i ng an i nfer ence thatthe D D D ’ s act i ons w er e anyt hi ng ot hert han thi s l et t erdes cr i bes them t o be. I n s um , J acks on’ s compl ai ntdoes notperm i tthe r eas onabl e i nfer ence thatthe D D D engage d i n anyact i onabl e mi s conduct . O r di nar i l y , a pl ai nt i ff mustbe gi ven l eave t o amend befor e hi s orhercompl ai nti s di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce on thatbas i s . See P h il li p s v . C n ty . o f A ll eg h en y , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). In th is case , h o w ev er, w e have t he bene fi tof the 106 l et t er s thatJ acks on s entthe D i s t r i ctC our t( as w el l as t he ov er 50 l et t ers t hat he has sentt his C ou rtdu ri ng the p end encyof h i s appea l ). R egardl ess of w hethert hes e l et t er s w er e pr oper l yfi l ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our torw i t h our s , theyhave g iven Jac k so n am p le op p o rtu n ityto elab o rate o n h is cl aim s. L ike h is co m p lai n t, h o w ev er, t heycon t ai n n othi ng sugg est i ng t hat the D D D has eng aged i n acti on able cond uct. T hu s, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatanyamendm entof J acks on’ s compl ai ntw oul d be fut i l e. See i d. 5 A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t . J acks on’ s m ot i on fort he appoi nt m entof couns el i s deni ed.