Jackson v. State of New Jersey, 022312 FED3, 12-1057

• Docket Nº: 12-1057
• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM
• Party Name: JOEY W. JACKSON, Appellant v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
• Judge Panel: Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
• Case Date: February 23, 2012
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

JOEY W. JACKSON, Appellant

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

No. 12-1057

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

February 23, 2012

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 16, 2012

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-02592) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Joey Jackson, a pro se plaintiff, filed this lawsuit in May of 2011. He complained of his treatment by the New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), which was allegedly "retaliating" against him and refusing to comply with a state administrative decision regarding his care and treatment plan. Jackson referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)¹ as the basis for his suit, although he also mentioned his rights under the United States Constitution. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and we will affirm its decision for the following reasons.²

Under the ADA, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."³ Jackson's complaint does not show that he has been the victim of discrimination or otherwise has been denied benefits. To the contrary, the documents he attached suggest that the state agencies are attempting to meet his needs, although perhaps not as quickly or comprehensively as he would prefer. We cannot conclude that the complaint contains enough well-pleaded facts to show entitlement to ADA relief.⁴

Elsewhere, Jackson complains that his constitutional rights are being violated. Even if these claims were properly presented, they do not have enough factual support. As Jackson himself observes, he requires constant supervision and has numerous, challenging disabilities which he manages with inconsistent success. This supervision, however, does not mean that he is constitutionally guaranteed twenty-four-hour transportation to locations of his choosing, or that his demands must be immediately met by staff and administrators. His desire for additional freedom and autonomy is understandable, as is his preference for placement in a location where he may enjoy additional activities, but it appears from the record that his requests are being taken seriously.

In 2010, we issued an opinion in another, similar lawsuit by Jackson. Today, as then, we conclude that the complaint...