NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

_________________________________________ 

 : 

ROBERT MCCARGO, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 v. : Civil Action No.: 11-533 (ES) 

 : 

LOGAN HALL, et al. : OPINION 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

_________________________________________ : 

SALAS, District Judge 

I. Introduction 

Before the Court is Defendant New Jersey State Parole Board’s (“Defendant” or “Parole 

Board”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Robert McCargo’s (“Plaintiff” or “McCargo”) complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s 

complaint for having failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court has 

considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the present motion and 

decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For 

the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. 

II. Background

 While on parole, McCargo resided at Logan Hall, a rehabilitation facility located in 

Newark, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 6). McCargo alleges that on November 1, 2010, he slipped and 

fell on a “wet floor” resulting in “an injury to his right foot . . . and the tearing off of his right 

Case 2:11-cv-00533-ES-CLW Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 79
- 2 - 

toe.”1 (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18). Thereafter, Plaintiff asserts that he was denied medical care for a period 

of five days. (Id. ¶ 19). Consequently, Plaintiff’s foot became black, numb, swollen, and 

painfully infected. (Id. ¶ 21). Plaintiff sought a legal injunction in order to obtain medical 

assistance. (Id. ¶ 23). 

On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant action against the Parole Board, an entity 

that McCargo contends “was responsible for [his] care and safety” as well as the “supervision of 

its contractees, Logan Hall and Community Education Center, Inc.” (Id. ¶ 11). Plaintiff seeks 

monetary damages for alleged violations of federal and state laws.2 On April 5, 2011, the Parole 

Board moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s complaint 

“should be dismissed . . . insofar as it seeks money damages against a State entity.”3 (Def. 

Moving Br. at 4). 

III. Legal Standard

 For a complaint to survive dismissal, it “must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to 

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Federal Rule of Civil 

procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

                                                            

1

 At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s claim that he tore off his right toe is contradicted in his brief opposing 

the Parole Board’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, McCargo states: “[Plaintiff] injured his foot and lost a toe nail.” 

(Pl. Opp. Br. at 1). 

2

 Plaintiff has conceded that his “federal claims as to the . . . Parole Board, should be dismissed.” (Pl. Opp. Br. at 2). 

Accordingly, Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Eight of Plaintiff’s Complaint are hereby dismissed with 

prejudice. The Court further notes that with respect to Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action—a tort claim under New 

Jersey Common Law—Plaintiff fails to allege any wrongdoing by the Parole Board. (See Compl. ¶¶ 45-48). 

Indeed, Plaintiff is clear: “Defendant [sic], Logan Hall and [Community Education Center], as employer and 

supervisor of its employees, are responsible for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff under the doctrine of 

Respondeat Superior.” (Id. ¶ 47). Accordingly, Count Five will be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the 

Court need only address Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action, which alleges violations of his rights under the New 

Jersey State Constitution. 

3

 The remaining Defendants—Logan Hall, Community Education Center, Inc., T. Stockholm, J. Trabucco, and L. 

Leslie—answered Plaintiff’s complaint on March 29, 2011. (See Docket Entry No. 3). 

Case 2:11-cv-00533-ES-CLW Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 80
- 3 - 

grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 

47 (1957). 

 When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “courts are required to 

accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and to draw all reasonable inferences 

in favor of the non-moving party.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 

2008) (citation omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). Courts are not required to 

credit bald assertions or legal conclusions draped in the guise of factual allegations. See In re 

Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429 (3d Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “[a] 

pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

IV. Analysis

 In Count Seven,4

 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for alleged violations of his rights 

under the New Jersey Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Parole Board 

“violated [his] rights . . . because they [sic] knew or should have known about the lack of 

training and supervision of [the employees of Logan Hall and Community Education Center, 

Inc.] . . . , [which] proximately caus[ed] [Plaintiff’s] harms . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 52). The issue 

before the Court is whether Plaintiff has alleged “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). 

 It is well settled that “[s]tate governments and their subdivisions are not amenable to suit 

in federal court pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Edwards v. State of New 

Jersey, No. 08-5617, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94372, at *5 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2009) (citing U.S. 

                                                            

4

 For clarity, the Court notes that Count Seven of Plaintiff’s complaint is incorrectly numbered. Preceding Count 

Seven is Count Five, thus Plaintiff appears to have skipped Count Six in drafting his complaint. 

Case 2:11-cv-00533-ES-CLW Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 81
- 4 - 

Const, amd. 11; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)). It is also well settled that “a suit by 

private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in a state 

treasury is barred from federal court by the Eleventh Amendment, unless Eleventh Amendment 

immunity is waived by the state itself or by federal statute.” Clay v. New Jersey State Parole 

Bd., No. 08-723, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62074, at *10 (D.N.J. Jul. 29, 2008) (citing Edelman v. 

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974)); see Edwards, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94372, at *5 (“Since 

Plaintiff seeks only damages here [ ], the Court must dismiss the . . . New Jersey State Parole 

Board . . . .”); Brandolph v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 93-5145, 1993 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 17504, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 1993) (holding that it is settled-law that the 

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole “is immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh 

Amendment” where plaintiff seeks an award of monetary damages). 

 In light of this precedent, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed 

because the Parole Board is protected from suit by sovereign immunity insofar as Plaintiff’s 

complaint seeks money damages from a State entity.5

 (Def. Moving Br. at 4; Def. Reply Br. at 

1-2). 

 The Court finds the Parole Board’s argument persuasive for the following two reasons. 

First, the Parole Board is an agency6 of the New Jersey state government, and thus not amenable 

to suit in federal court under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.7

 See Edwards, 2009 U.S. Dist. 

                                                            

5

 Plaintiff appears to overlook this specific argument raised by the Parole Board as he fails to address it in his 

opposition brief. (See Pl. Opp. Br. at 3-5). 

6 See U.S. ex rel. Gainer v. New Jersey, 278 F. Supp. 127, 128 (D.N.J. 1967) (noting that “[t]he New Jersey Board of 

Parole is an agency of the New Jersey state government.”). 

7 The Court further notes that it appears, and the Plaintiff has not otherwise argued, that the Parole Board has not 

expressly consented to being sued in this action. See Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673 (“In deciding whether a state [or 

state agency] has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only 

where stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as will leave no 

room for any other reasonable construction.”) (citation and quotation omitted).

Case 2:11-cv-00533-ES-CLW Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 82
- 5 - 

LEXIS 94372, at *5 (dismissing plaintiff’s claim against the New Jersey State Parole Board in 

part because “State governments and their subdivisions are not amenable to suit in federal court 

pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”). Second, McCargo seeks an award of money 

damages resulting from the alleged events of November 1, 2010. However, any monetary 

damage imposed on the Parole Board would be directly paid from public funds in the state 

treasury. For that reason, Plaintiff’s complaint—relating to the allegations against the Parole 

Board—is barred under the Eleventh Amendment.8 See Clay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62074, at 

*10 (D.N.J. Jul. 29, 2008) (citing Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663). Accordingly, the facts alleged, and 

all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, fail to establish a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

V. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff shall have 

15 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Court’s Opinion. An appropriate 

Order shall follow. 

 s/Esther Salas 

 Esther Salas 

 United States District Judge 

                                                            

8

 The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, “The Judicial power of the United States 

shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United 

States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” 

Case 2:11-cv-00533-ES-CLW Document 11 Filed 12/20/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 83