2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-17-2013

Rizzo v. Connell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2629

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision 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 2013 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

"Rizzo v. Connell" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 980.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/980
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 12-2629

__________

JOSEPH RIZZO,

Appellant

v.

ROBERT CONNELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN AGENT OF THE NEW JERSEY 

BUREAU OF WATER MONITORING AND STANDARDS; MARK MAURIELLO, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW JERSEY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; SCOTT BRUBAKER, 

INDIVDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LAND USE 

MANAGEMENT; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION; AMY CRADIC, INDIVDUALLY AND AS DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION; JAMES W. JOSEPH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF OF THE 

NEW JERSEYBUREAU OF SHELLFISHERIES; ROBERT FOCCA, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES; LESLIE J. MCGEORGE, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WATER MONITORING 

AND STANDARDS; JOHN DOES 1-20, INDIVUALLY AND AS AGENTS AND 

EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES AND THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THOMAS A. FOCA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(District Court No. 3:10-CV-04136)

District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

___________
2

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 21, 2013

___________

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 17, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

McKEE, Chief Judge

Joseph Rizzo appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion for relief 

from a final judgment. We will affirm.1

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need 

not set forth the factual or procedural history.2

Rizzo conceded that his claims against the defendants in their official capacities 

are barred under the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court granted judgment in 

favor of the defendants in their official capacities. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); Rizzo v. 

Connell, Jr., et al., No. 10-4136, 2012 WL 32206, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2012). In doing 

so, the Court also held that the remaining claims cannot succeed because the defendants 

are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as Rizzo alleges they were acting in their 

 

1

 A denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is reviewed for an abuse of 

2

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

individual capacities. See id. at *11. Thereafter, the Court denied Rizzo’s Rule 59(e) 

motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed. 

Qualified immunity applies if (1) the facts do not establish the violation of a 

constitutional right, or (2) the right at issue is not “clearly established” at the time of the 

alleged misconduct. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009); Kelly v. 

Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2010) (“The qualified immunity standard 

gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or 

those who knowingly violate the law.” (internal quotations omitted)).

The District Court carefully and thoroughly explained its basis for concluding that 

Rizzo could not establish that his constitutional rights were violated by any actions of the 

defendants acting in their individual capacities. See Rizzo, 2012 WL 32206, at *3-11. 

We will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court. See Anderson 

v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently 

clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he was doing violates that 

right.”); Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that qualified 

immunity protected state officials who were enforcing a statute that imposed restrictions 

on livestock ranching practices).

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying reconsideration of 

its grant of judgment on the pleadings.