NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SHAYONE RATLIFF,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS 

OFFICE, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4084 (MLC)

 O P I N I O N

THE PLAINTIFF, Shayone Ratliff, who is represented by counsel, 

brings the action against, among others, former New Jersey Attorney 

General Anne Milgram, former Deputy Attorney General Asha Vaghela 

(s/h/a Asha Vaghella), and Deputy Attorney General Erik Daab (s/h/a 

Erik Daabe) (collectively, “the Individual Defendants”). (See dkt. 

entry no. 28, 3d Am. Compl.) Ratliff asserts claims against the 

Individual Defendants for alleged violations of his state and 

federal constitutional rights. (See id.) The Individual 

Defendants have been sued in both their personal and official 

capacities. (See id.)

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS now move to dismiss the claims 

asserted against them that concern alleged violations of Ratliff’s 

federal constitutional rights (“Federal Claims”), based on the 

doctrine of immunity. (See dkt. entry no. 39, Notice of Mot.; dkt. 

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 44 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 350
2

entry no. 39-1, Br. in Supp. at 7-11.) Ratliff has not filed

opposition to the Motion.1 The Court has thus considered the 

Motion without oral argument, see L.Civ.R. 78.1(b), and analyzed 

the Third Amended Complaint substantively in light of the arguments 

raised in support of the Motion. See Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 

951 F.2d 29, 29-30 (3d Cir. 1991).

THE COURT has concluded, with respect to the Federal Claims 

and pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, that the Individual 

Defendants enjoy immunity insofar as they have been named in their 

official capacities. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) 

(“Suits against state officials in their official capacity . . . 

should be treated as suits against the State.”); Kadonsky v. New 

Jersey, 188 Fed.Appx. 81, 83-84 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[C]laims against 

the State of New Jersey . . . are barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment[.]”). (See also dkt. entry no. 41, 6-5-13 Op. (finding 

 

1 Ratliff’s opposition to the Motion was originally due on May 

20, 2013. (See dkt. text entry following dkt. entry no. 39 (noting 

that Motion was returnable on June 3, 2013).) See also L.Civ.R. 

7.1(c), (d)(2). On May 21, 2013, Ratliff filed an untimely request 

for additional time to oppose the Motion; the untimely request was 

granted, and the Motion was made returnable on July 1, 2013. (See

dkt. entry no. 40, 5-21-13 Letter.) See also L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(5). 

Opposition papers were thus due two weeks ago on June 17, 2013. 

(See dkt. text entry following dkt. entry no. 40.) See also

L.Civ.R. 7.1(c), (d)(2). Ratliff nonetheless failed to oppose or 

otherwise respond to the Motion.

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 44 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 351
3

here that the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General enjoyed 

immunity and dismissing claims raised against that entity).) 

THE COURT also concludes, with respect to the Federal Claims, 

that the Individual Defendants enjoy immunity insofar as they have 

been named in their personal capacities.

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS enjoy -- with respect to the Federal 

Claims -- immunity insofar as they have each been sued personally. 

State officials may in some circumstances be held personally liable 

for actions taken in their official capacities. See, e.g., Hafer, 

502 U.S. at 27. Here, however, the Individual Defendants enjoy 

immunity from the Federal Claims because the acts alleged in the 

Third Amended Complaint arose from and relate directly to the 

Individual Defendants’ official prosecutorial capacities. See Van 

de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343-46 (2009); Imbler v. 

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-29 (1976); Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 

1454, 1463-64 (3d Cir. 1992) (“The decision to initiate a 

prosecution is at the core of a prosecutor’s judicial role. A 

prosecutor is absolutely immune when making this decision, even 

where he acts without a good faith belief that any wrongdoing has 

occurred. Harm to a falsely-charged defendant is remedied by 

safeguards built into the judicial system . . . .”) (citations 

omitted); Nemes v. Korngut, No. 08-2814, 2008 WL 5401609, at *9 

(D.N.J. Dec. 24, 2008) (holding that deputy attorney generals were 

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 44 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 352
4

“immune from damages for actions taken in their official 

prosecutorial capacity”). The Court thus intends to grant the 

Motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the Federal Claims 

asserted against the Individual Defendants.

THE COURT also intends to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint 

to the extent that it may be construed to assert claims against the 

defendant Middlesex County Prosecutors Office (“MCPO”), sua sponte. 

Ratliff stipulated to the dismissal of any claims asserted against 

the MCPO in August of 2012. (See dkt. entry no. 20, 8-6-12 

Stipulation of Dismissal.) Furthermore, insofar as the action may 

be construed to concern the MCPO -- insofar as the MCPO is named in 

the Third Amended Complaint -- the action has been pending for more 

than 120 days without Ratliff having taken any proceedings against 

the MCPO. See L.Civ.R. 41.1(a).

THE COURT will deny the Motion to the extent that it addresses 

claims asserted pursuant to state law against the Individual 

Defendants (“State Claims”) without prejudice. But the Court, in 

doing so, intends to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over the State Claims. (See 3d Am. Compl. at 2 (introductory 

paragraph), 5-6 (¶ 24), 7 (¶ 31), 10 (¶ 40), 13 (7th Cause of 

Action).) See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 

117, 128 (3d Cir. 2013). The Court will dismiss the State Claims 

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 44 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 353
5

without prejudice, and grant Ratliff leave to pursue those claims 

in state court within thirty days. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

THE COURT, for good cause appearing, will issue a separate 

Order and Judgment. 

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 28, 2013

Case 3:11-cv-04084-MLC-DEA Document 44 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 354