NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

SHAYONE RATLIFF, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4084 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS :

OFFICE, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, Shayone Ratliff, who is represented by

counsel, brings this action to recover damages for violations of

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and the New Jersey Civil Rights

Act (“NJCRA”). (See dkt. entry no. 28, 3d Am. Compl.) The

defendant New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (“NJOAG”) —

sued herein as New Jersey State Attorney Generals Office — moves

to dismiss the claims asserted against it, arguing that it (1)

“is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit”, and (2)

“is not regarded as a ‘person’ amenable to suit under [Section

1983], or the [NJCRA]”. (Dkt. entry no. 35, NJOAG Br. at 2.)

THE NJOAG filed its motion (“NJOAG Motion”) on January 7,

2013. (See generally dkt. entry no. 35.) The return date for

the NJOAG Motion was on February 4, 2013. (See unnumbered entry

after dkt. entry no. 35.) The plaintiff has neither filed a

response to the NJOAG Motion, nor sought an extension of time to

file papers in response thereto.

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 41 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 342
THE DEFENDANTS Erik Daabe, Anne Milgram, and Asha Vaghella

(“Individual Defendants”) separately move to dismiss the claims

asserted against them. (See generally dkt. entry no. 39,

Individual Defs. Br.) The Individual Defendants filed their

motion (“Individual Defendants Motion”) on May 1, 2013. (See

generally dkt. entry no. 39.) On May 21, 2013, the plaintiff

sought an extension of time to respond to the Individual

Defendants Motion only. (See dkt. entry no. 40, 5-21-13 Letter

at 1-4.) The Court granted the plaintiff an extension of time as

to that motion on June 3, 2013. (See unnumbered entry after dkt.

entry no. 40 (noting same).)

THE PLAINTIFF, in seeking an extension of time to respond to

the Individual Defendants Motion, has demonstrated that he is

actively monitoring the Court’s electronic docket for this

action. Thus, the Court must assume that the plaintiff, who the

Court again notes is represented by counsel, (1) is aware of the

NJOAG Motion, (2) does not intend to respond to the NJOAG Motion,

and (3) concedes that the claims asserted against the NJOAG

should be dismissed. Therefore, the NJOAG Motion will be

granted.

EVEN IF the plaintiff were not conceding that the claims

asserted against the NJOAG should be dismissed, the Court would

grant the NJOAG Motion on the merits. Section 1983 enables a

plaintiff to bring a civil action against a “person” who caused a

2

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 41 Filed 06/05/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 343
deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law. 

But the NJOAG is not considered to be a “person” subject to such

an action. See Hawkins v. Sup. Ct. of N.J., 174 Fed.Appx. 683,

685 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming part of District Court order

dismissing claims asserted against NJOAG, as “neither the Supreme

Court of New Jersey nor the Office of the Attorney General for

the State of New Jersey is a ‘person’ subject to liability under

§ 1983”). The Eleventh Amendment also bars Section 1983 claims

asserted against the NJOAG, as such claims are, in effect,

brought against the state itself. See Kadonsky v. New Jersey,

188 Fed.Appx. 81, 83-84 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming part of

District Court judgment dismissing claims asserted against NJOAG

as barred by Eleventh Amendment). New Jersey has not consented

to subject the NJOAG to this type of civil action, and immunity

here has not been abrogated.

THE NJOAG, as a New Jersey state agency, is also not a

“person” subject to liability as defined by the NJCRA. See

N.J.S.A. §§ 1:1-2, 10:6-2(c); see also Didiano v. Balicki, 488

Fed.Appx. 634, 637-39 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming part of District

Court order determining New Jersey state agency is not a “person”

amenable to suit under either Section 1983 or NJCRA); Chapman v.

State of New Jersey, No. 08-4130, 2009 WL 2634888, at *3 (D.N.J.

Aug. 25, 2009) (stating claim asserted against New Jersey state

agency under NJCRA “is impermissible”); Fields v. Essex Cnty.

3

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 41 Filed 06/05/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 344
Prob. Dep’t, No. A-2879-09T3, 2011 WL 677255, at *2-3 (N.J.

App.Div. Feb. 28, 2011) (affirming part of Superior Court order

determining New Jersey state agency was not a “person” subject to

liability under Section 1983 or NJCRA).

THE COURT will issue an appropriate order and judgment

granting the NJOAG Motion. The Individual Defendants Motion will

be separately addressed, when appropriate.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 5, 2013

4

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 41 Filed 06/05/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 345