JOEY W. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.11 -cv-2592

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEVELOPMENTAL DiSABiLITIES

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss the complaint by Defendant, New

Jersey Division ofDevelopmental Disabilities (DDD). Jackson suffers from a mental disability

and is under the care ofthe DDD which provides housing and other services to Jackson. He filed

pro se a handwritten complaint against the DDD, to which he attached several documents

including a decision ofthe Office ofAdministrative Law (OAL).

As this memorandum is being written for the parties, the complete facts ofthe case are

not set forth filly below. The complaint filed by Plaintiffin this case is similar to five other

complaints filed by Mr. Jackson against the DDD in the United States District Court. See

Jackson v. New Jersey Division ofDevelopmental Disabilities (D.N.J. No. 09-5366); Jackson v.

Carlini (D.N.J. No. 00-309 1); Jackson v. Richey(D.N.J. No. 08-2385); Jackson v. Gambino

(D.N.J. No. 08-309!): and Jackson v. Gambino (D.N.J. No. 08-3274). The complaint alleges,

without any facts, that the DDD is “not in compliance with the Office ofAdministrative LaWsinitial decision dated April 4, 2011”; and that Mr. Jackson seeks to be placed In a less structured
minor issues, On May 27. 21)11. the DI)D advised Jackson ol his right to appeal the decision to

the Superior Couri of New Jerse. Appellate Division: ho ever. Mr. Jackson tiled a suit here

instead.

‘[Wje must accept all factual allegations in the Complaint as true. construe the complaint

in the light favorable to the plaintiff, and ultimately determine whether plaintiff may be entitled

to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint.” Mayer v. f3eiiehiek, 605 F. 3d 223, 229

(3d Cir. 2010). Pro se complaints are “liberally construed” and “held to a less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted h lawyers’ e Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89(2007). In this

case there is an abstention issue and a Rooker-Feidman issue.

In New Jersey, there is a complex state regulatory scheme over homelessness of disabled

persons, and how the state will provide assistance. The state regulatory scheme is an effort to

establish a uniform policy over such issues. Generally, the court will abstain from interfering

with the state process administering to a local concern. See Burfàrd v. .S’un Oil Co.. 319 U.S. 315

(1943).As such. the Court abstains from deciding the case in light of the slate administrative and

judicial review of the issue. Id. at 333-34.

In addition to abstention, there is also a Rooker-Feldinan issue. In a prior case. the

allegations are the same as in this case, i.e., Jackson was “denied an emergency placement

because of his dual diagnosis” and he sought “placement in better care housing.” Jackson v,.V.J.
IT IS on this 19th day of December. 2011

ORDERh[) that the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and ii is further

ORDERED that Judge Coopers prior order in civil action 09-5366 (docket entry 45)

enjoining and prohibiting certain conduct by Joey Jackson is adopted and incorporated herein.

:7r L.

F [

PETER G. SHERIDAN, US.D.J.