Opinion ID: 2742439
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Jersey Civil Rights Act

Text: In addition to bringing suit under the federal civil rights statutes, the Estate raised a claim under the NJCRA, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-1 to -2. Like 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the NJCRA “premise[s] liability on the conduct of a ‘person.’” Lopez-Siguenza v. Roddy, No. 13-2005 (JBS/JS), 2014 WL 1298300, at  (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2014). New Jersey district courts have interpreted the NJCRA as having incorporated the Supreme Court’s decision in Will that, for purposes of § 1983, states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not amenable to suit. See id. at ; Didiano v. Balicki, Civ. No. 10-4483 (RBK/AMD), 2011 WL 1466131, at  (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2011); Slinger v. New Jersey, Civ. No. 07-5561 (DMC), 2008 WL 4126181, at –8 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2008), rev’d in part, 366 F. App’x 357 (3d Cir. 2010). Because the District Court erred in concluding at this stage that neither the BCPO nor Mordaga were “persons” amenable to suit under §§ 1983 and 1985, it likewise erred in concluding that they are not “persons” under the NJCRA. 7 Accordingly, we will vacate the dismissal of Count 2 on that ground as well. 7 The District Court and the parties cite N.J. Stat. Ann. § 1:1-2, which defines “person” for purposes of New Jersey law as: corporations, companies, associations, societies, firms, partnerships and joint stock companies as well as individuals, 13