2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-17-2013 

# R i zzo v . C onnel l

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-2629

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" R i z z o v . C onne l l " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 980. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/9801 

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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 W A TER 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 DEPARTMEN T 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 A S 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 f

rom 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 Jud ge , S MITH and GREENAWAY , JR. , Circuit Judges (Filed: April 17, 2013 )

___________ OPINION

___________ McKEE, Chief Judge
Jo s e ph Rizzo appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion for relief from a final judgment. W e will affirm. 1


### I.
Beca use 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 C ourt also held that the rem aining 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 C ourt denied Rizzo’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration , and this appeal followed. Q ualified immunity applies if (1) the facts do not establish the violation of a constitutional right, or (2) the right at issue is not “clearly e stablished” 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 quo tation s 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 Rizz o , 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) ( “T he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understa nd 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).
A ccordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying reconsideration of its grant of judgment on the pleadings.