2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-9-2015

Joey Jackson v. Mary Domzalski

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This March is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Joey Jackson v. Mary Domzalski" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 237.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/237
BLD-124 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3963

___________

JOEY W. JACKSON,

Appellant

v.

MS. MARY DOMZALSKI, Case Manager from State of NJ Department of Human 

Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3-13-cv-04462)

District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 26, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 9, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Joey Jackson appeals the District Court’s order granting the 

defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2

§ 1291 and exercise a plenary standard of review. See Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. 

Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). For the reasons set forth below, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 

10.6.

Jackson suffers from a mental disability and is under the care of the New Jersey 

Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). He filed a complaint in the District 

Court, alleging that the DDD has violated his rights under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide him with a sufficient menu of recreational 

and social activities and offering him only limited transportation services. The District 

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that Jackson had failed to state a plausible claim for 

relief. 

We agree with the District Court. Under the ADA, “no qualified individual with a 

disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be 

denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be 

subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Jackson’s complaint 

does not show that he has been the victim of discrimination or otherwise has been denied 

benefits. See, e.g., Cohon ex rel. Bass v. N.M. Dep’t of Health, 646 F.3d 717, 729 (10th 

Cir. 2011) (denying claim that individual’s rights under the ADA were violated because 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
3

she was not provided with services to support her “goals of self-direction and selfdetermination”). As we explained in affirming the District Court’s previous dismissal of 

a related action filed by Jackson, “the documents [Jackson has] attached suggest that the 

state agencies are attempting to meet his needs, although perhaps not as quickly or 

comprehensively as he would prefer.” Jackson v. N.J., 465 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 

2012) (non-precedential). Likewise, he is not “guaranteed twenty-four-hour 

transportation to locations of his choosing.” Id. Thus, the District Court did not err in 

dismissing Jackson’s complaint. See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009).

1

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.2 Because

the appeal lacks merit, Jackson’s request for counsel is denied. All other pending 

requests are also denied.

 

1 Given that the hundreds of documents Jackson has filed in the District Court and this 

Court have failed to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, we are satisfied that amendment to 

the complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly 

dismissed the complaint without providing leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview 

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

2 We interpret the Magistrate Judge’s March 3, 2014 order to rule that it was unnecessary 

to appoint a representative to assist Jackson pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. This conclusion was within the Court’s discretion. See generally

Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 306 (3d Cir. 2012).