Meyer v. State of New Jersey
| Decision Date | 19 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1561.,71-1561. |
| Citation | 460 F.2d 1252 |
| Parties | Mrs. Ronald F. MEYER, Appellant, v. The STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Mrs. Ronald Meyer, pro se, New York City, for appellant.
George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., H. Kirk Ressler, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., on the brief, for appellee; Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.
Before MAX ROSENN and JAMES ROSEN, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, District Judge.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) March 13, 1972.
This appeal seeks to reverse a district court order dismissing a pro se complaint filed by appellant, Mrs. Ronald F. Meyer, against the State of New Jersey, the only named defendant.
As noted by Judge Coolahan the complaint is not a "model of clarity." Since the complaint was filed pro se we have endeavored to distill the issues from the myriad allegations in the complaint. Carr v. Sharp, 454 F.2d 271 (3d Cir. 1971); Richardson v. Miller, 446 F.2d 1247, 1248 (3d Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. County of Philadelphia, 413 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 1046, 90 S.Ct. 696, 24 L.Ed.2d 691 (1970).
Mrs. Meyer contends that her husband obtained an improper Mexican divorce, remarried, and is now living in New Jersey and that the New Jersey courts, state officials and Legal Services' attorneys refused and failed to assist her in the collection of alimony from her husband. Secondly, that she cannot "obtain justice" because of her religious beliefs.
While Mrs. Meyer maintains that "the dispute between husband and wife is not an issue in this action," and "amount of money in question is not involved when civil liberties are at stake"1 she requests one million dollars damages against the unconsenting State of New Jersey.
The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution bars an action for money damages in a federal court against the State by a citizen of another State unless the state grants its consent.2 Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 19 S.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899), Gambocz v. Sub-Committee on Claims of The Joint Legislative Appropriations Committee, New Jersey Legislature, 423 F.2d 674 (3d Cir. 1970). Cf. O'Neill v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 459 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. filed February 25, 1972). "Nor is the State divested of its immunity `on the mere ground that the case is one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States.'" Parden v. Terminal Rwy. of The Alabama State Docks Dept., 377 U.S. 184, 186, 84 S.Ct. 1207, 1209, 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964).
The State of New Jersey cannot be sued under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. County of Philadelphia, 413 F.2d p. 86, footnotes 2 and 3; Gambocz v. Sub-Committee on Claims of The Joint Legislative Appropriations Committee, New Jersey Legislature, 423 F.2d p. 674.
We have reviewed the entire record and considered the "Petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa.
...278, 24 L.Ed.2d 234 (1969); United States ex rel. Foreman v. State of New Jersey, 449 F.2d 1298 (3rd Cir. 1971); Meyer v. State of New Jersey, 460 F.2d 1252 (3rd Cir. 1972). C. After a careful review of the record before us, we decide that plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive r......
-
Kravitz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, s. 76-1390
...predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Myer v. New Jersey, 460 F.2d 1252 (3d Cir. 1972). The Governor and Attorney General named in the complaint were not in office when the alleged unconstitutional conduct occurr......
-
Moreno v. University of Maryland
...agencies are not "persons" for § 1983 purposes. A state is also not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action. Meyer v. State of New Jersey, 460 F.2d 1252 (3rd Cir. 1972); Whitner v. Davis, 410 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1969); Hinish v. State of Maryland, 393 F.Supp. 53 (D.Md.1975). This doctrine appli......
-
Hodgson v. Board of Ed., Parsippany-Troy Hills
...568 (D. N.J.1967). Cf. Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972); and see Meyer v. State of New Jersey, 460 F.2d 1252 (3 Cir. 1972); O'Neill v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 459 F.2d 1 (3 Cir. In the O'Neill case the Third Circuit observed that ". . . ......