NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 21-2982

__________

JEFFREY D. HILL,

 Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 21-cv-00479)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 10, 2022

Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and MATEY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 29, 2022)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Hill appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. For 

the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

The procedural history of this case and the details of Hill’s claims are described in 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and need not be discussed at length. 

Briefly, Hill filed a complaint against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the sole 

defendant. In the handwritten, 193-page complaint, Hill complained of various 

conspiracies against him beginning more than thirty years ago. The complaint also 

contained a petition for a “writ of quo warranto/prohibition/error.” 

The Magistrate Judge noted that a filing injunction against Hill required him to 

receive certification from a Magistrate Judge before filing a civil action. The Magistrate 

Judge explained that, to the extent that the injunction was enforceable, he would decline 

to certify the complaint. In the alternative, he recommended that the complaint be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted because Hill’s claims against the Commonwealth were 

barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court adopted the Report and 

Recommendation and dismissed Hill’s complaint with prejudice. Hill filed a timely 

notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s determination that the Commonwealth was entitled to Eleventh 

Amendment immunity. Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 252 (3d Cir. 

2010).

On appeal, Hill argues that he never consented to the Magistrate Judge’s presiding 

over his case. The Magistrate Judge, however, simply submitted a recommendation for 

the disposition of the matter as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). As for the District 
3

Court’s determination on immunity, Hill argues, without citation or support, that there is 

no immunity for official willful misconduct. The District Court was correct, however,

that the Commonwealth is immune from suit. 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. 

See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Pennsylvania 

has not waived its immunity from suits in federal court. Downey v. Pennsylvania Dep’t 

of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2020).1

For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will 

affirm the District Court’s judgment.

1 We agree with the District Court that Hill does not qualify for quo warranto relief or 

any other writ.