NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-2765

__________

MATTHEW PAUL DEC,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

PA Attorney General; PENN DOT, PA Chief Counsel Office, PennDot;

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE; BUTLER COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA,

Butler County Solicitors Office 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-01290)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Cynthia R. Eddy (by consent)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 20, 2024

Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 9, 2024)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

Matthew P. Dec appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We 

will affirm.

In September 2022, Dec filed a civil rights action in the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Dec’s claims, which he brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to his arrest for driving under the influence and the 

suspension of his driver’s license. He named as defendants the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation.1 The parties agreed to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The 

defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). The District Court granted that motion, holding that Dec’s claims were barred 

by the Eleventh Amendment. Dec appealed. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary 

review over a District Court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and legal determinations 

regarding immunity. See Kedra v. Schroeter, 876 F.3d 424, 434 (3d Cir. 2017); Dotzel v. 

Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320, 324-25 (3d Cir. 2006). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up).

1 Dec also sued Butler County but later filed a motion to strike it from the action. The 

District Court treated that motion as a notice of dismissal and granted it. 
3

In his brief, which we liberally construe, Dec challenges the District Court’s 

conclusion that the defendants were immune from suit. The Eleventh Amendment of the 

U.S. Constitution protects a state and state agency from a suit brought in federal court by 

one of its own citizens regardless of the relief sought. See MCI Telecom. Corp. v. Bell 

Atl.-Pa., 271 F.3d 491, 503-04 (3d Cir. 2001). Although a state may waive its Eleventh 

Amendment immunity, see Koslow v. Pennsylvania, 302 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 2002), 

Pennsylvania has not done so. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8521(b); Lavia v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 

224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000). In addition, Congress has the authority to abrogate a 

state’s sovereign immunity pursuant to its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, 

but it did not do so through the enactment of § 1983, the federal law pursuant to which 

Dec proceeded. See Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2020). 

Therefore, we agree with the District Court that Dec cannot proceed with his claims 

against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. We also conclude that providing Dec with 

leave to amend his complaint would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State 

Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Dec’s 

motion for an expedited ruling is denied.