NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4209

___________

JEVON D. GREEN,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY; 

MAYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

MAYWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT; 

OFFICER MATTHEW PARODI; 

OFFICER KEVIN MADDEN; 

21 CENTURY INSURANCE; 

ROWEL M. CALMA; 

MARILYN S. CALMA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 11-cv-04733)

District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 12, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 20, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

___________

PER CURIAM

Jevon D. Green appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint upon the motions to dismiss filed by the 

defendants. We will affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the details of this case, we present only a 

brief summary here. Green initiated these proceedings in the District Court to seek 

redress for claims arising from a motor vehicle stop on July 21, 2008, in Maywood, New 

Jersey. Green alleged that he was pulled over by two Maywood Police Officers, Matthew 

Parodi and Kevin Madden. When Officer Madden directed Green to exit his vehicle, he 

was reluctant to do so for fear of aggravating neck and back injuries suffered in a 2007 

car accident. Ultimately, Green complied with the request by exiting the vehicle with his 

hands in the air, but the officers placed him in a headlock, handcuffed him, and arrested 

him. Green stated that he suffered financial losses stemming from the vehicle being 

towed after his arrest.

Green filed his pro se complaint on August 15, 2011 against the Maywood Police 

Department, Officers Parodi and Madden, and the Maywood Municipal Court 

(“Maywood Defendants”). Green also named the State of New Jersey as a defendant. 

The District Court granted Green’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed 

Green’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Green appealed 

from that dismissal in C.A. No. 12-1517. We agreed that Green’s complaint failed to 
3

state a claim on which relief may be granted. However, we noted that the District Court 

did not afford Green an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the complaint. We thus 

vacated the dismissal and remanded the matter to permit the filing of an amended 

complaint. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

On remand, the District Court vacated its dismissal order and directed Green to 

file an amended complaint consistent with our opinion filed in C.A. No. 12-1517. In 

September 2012, Green filed his amended complaint, listing the following under the 

heading titled “Civil Action Complaint (Amended)”: “Assault; Motorvehicle Assault, 

Auto-Accident; Mistaken Identity; Illegal Incarceration; Illegal Towing of Motor 

Vehicle; Violation of Civil Rights; Housing Discrimination” [sic]. (Amended Complaint 

at 1 (emphasis deleted).) To the original roster of defendants, Green added defendants 

Marilyn S. Calma, Rowel M. Calma, and the Calmas’ insurer, 21st Century Assurance 

Company (“21st Century,” improperly identified as “21st Century Insurance”). Green’s 

amended complaint again described the events that occurred during the July 21, 2008 

traffic stop in Maywood, which led to his being arrested and convicted in state court. 

Green again noted that his vehicle was towed and that he was placed in default on his 

vehicle loan. Green sought assorted forms of relief, including replacement of items lost 

during the arrest, compensation for debts incurred as a result of the incident, 

expungement of his arrest and conviction, appointment of counsel to assist in the 

expungement, and housing assistance.
4

The State of New Jersey, 21st Century and the Calmas, and the Maywood 

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Green filed a response to the State of 

New Jersey’s motion, and he was provided opportunity to respond to the other 

defendants’ motions. On June 23, 2014, the District Court construed Green’s complaint 

as alleging civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, granted each of the defendants’ 

motions to dismiss, and dismissed all claims with prejudice against each set of 

defendants.

Green appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss. See In re 

Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d 

Cir. 2012); Broselow v. Fisher, 319 F.3d 605, 607 (3d Cir. 2003).

Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we will affirm for 

substantially the same reasoning contained in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. 

The District Court correctly dismissed the amended complaint as to the State of New 

Jersey on the basis of the Eleventh Amendment and the principles of sovereign immunity. 

The Eleventh Amendment renders a state immune from suit by private parties in federal 

court unless the state consents to jurisdiction. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Federation of 

 

1 The District Court’s dismissal order did not specifically address a cross-claim pleaded 

by 21st Century and the Calmas, which requested indemnification by the co-defendants if 

liability were found. However, in support of their later-filed motions to dismiss, 21st 

Century and the Calmas requested dismissal of their cross-claims. In granting the 

motions to dismiss and dismissing all claims against each set of defendants, the District 

Court’s order adequately disposed of all claims as to all parties.
5

Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Hess, 297 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Cir. 2002). Section 1983 does 

not abrogate states’ immunity, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340-41 (1979), and the 

State of New Jersey has not consented to suit in federal court.2

Concerning the Maywood Defendants, the District Court correctly dismissed the 

action as barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. A complaint pursuant 

to § 1983 is “characterized as a personal-injury claim and thus is governed by the 

applicable state’s statute of limitations for personal-injury claims.” Dique v. N.J. State 

Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police Dep’t, 

892 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1989)). In New Jersey, § 1983 claims are subject to New 

Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations on personal injury actions. See Dique, 603 F.3d 

at 185; see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2. While state law governs the applicable statute 

of limitations, federal law controls when a § 1983 claim accrues. Wallace v. Kato, 

549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Accrual occurs, and the statute of limitations begins to run, as 

soon as a plaintiff has a complete cause of action. See id. Here, any § 1983 claim 

relating to Green’s July 21, 2008 arrest accrued on that date, and the limitations period 

began to run. However, Green did not file his complaint until August 2011, well more 

than two years later.3

 

2 Moreover, as the State of New Jersey notes in its brief, the exception under Ex Parte 

Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), does not apply here. The Young doctrine relates to suits 

against individual state officers, but Green did not aver any claims against any individual 

state officers.

3

In addition, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that, to the extent that Green 
6

As for 21st Century and the Calmas, we agree with the District Court’s decision to 

grant their motion to dismiss. In their motion to dismiss, 21st Century and the Calmas 

explained that Green was involved in a 2007 vehicle collision with an automobile driven 

by Marilyn Calma, owned by Rowel M. Calma, and insured by 21st Century. However, 

despite these defendants being included among the parties in the caption of the amended 

complaint, the amended complaint does not mention these defendants at all. “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) (internal quotations omitted). Because Green made no allegations against 21st 

Century and the Calmas in his amended complaint, we agree with the District Court that 

Green failed to state a viable claim under the Iqbal standard.

We note that Green’s brief refers to other cases that he had pursued in the District 

Court, as well as another state court criminal case. In particular, Green refers us to his 

complaint against Maywood Municipal Court, Maywood Police Station, Bergen County 

Jail Annex, and Officers Parodi and Madden, filed in D.N.J. Civ. No. 09-cv-02075.4 In 

that case, he raised similar allegations and claims arising from the July 21, 2008 

 

intended to assert a claim of malicious prosecution against the Maywood defendants, 

Green cannot prevail. Green does not allege that any related prosecution ended in his 

favor—indeed, Green sought to have his conviction record expunged—so he cannot 

satisfy the favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim. See Kossler 

v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 187 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc).

4 Green also refers us to his unsuccessful suit against the Calmas and 21st Century, filed 

in D.N.J. Civ. No. 09-cv-06110, relating to the car accident.
7

Maywood incident, and the case was dismissed. In dismissing Green’s appeal in that 

matter, we noted that we had construed his complaint as, at most, a premature habeas 

corpus petition, and that a challenge to a state court conviction could not be brought in 

federal court at that stage in the proceedings. Green v. Maywood Municipal Court, et al., 

C.A. No. 09-3822 (3d Cir. Jul. 28, 2010) (ORDER).

Against that background, it is evident from Green’s brief and reply brief that he is 

conflating his various causes of action--criminal and civil, and state and federal. For 

example, in his reply brief, Green argues that the State of New Jersey cannot assert 

sovereign immunity “if it is explained I can request an appeal of the State of New Jersey 

criminal conviction in the federal court.” Reply Brief, page numbered 21. He also states 

that “I am unclear on my petition of habeas corpus made to the District Court. . . . So I 

am now requesting that if my application was denied then I would like to appeal my case 

to the Court of Appeals for Third Circuit. . . .” Id. at page numbered 16. We have read 

the arguments in his briefs, but all that is before us in this present appeal is whether the 

District Court’s dismissal of the amended complaint filed in this case was appropriate. 

We cannot in this appeal from the dismissal of a civil rights action address claims relating 

to the validity of Green’s state court convictions. Those matters are outside the scope of 

this appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing 

Green’s amended complaint. Green’s motion to file a supplemental appendix is granted 

to the extent that it contains portions of the district court record. Green’s motion to 
8

supplement the district court record is denied to the extent that his proposed supplement 

includes documents outside of the district court record.