Scott v. Delaware Department of Family Services ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •        CLD-301                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 13-1898
    ___________
    KAREE SCOTT,
    Appellant
    v.
    DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Delaware
    (D. Del. Civil No. 12-cv-00195)
    District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action
    Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    June 27, 2013
    Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: July 16, 2013)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Pro Se Appellant Karee Scott appeals the dismissal of her complaint under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, we
    1
    will summarily affirm the District Court‟s dismissal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P.
    10.6.
    On February 16, 2012, Scott filed a complaint against the Delaware Department of
    Family Services (“the agency”) alleging that she was discriminated against by reason of
    mental illness and race. On June 11, 2012, the District Court dismissed all of Scott‟s
    claims due to the agency‟s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court
    gave Smith leave to amend her complaint because it appeared that she might have
    plausible claims against individual defendants. Smith filed an amended complaint on
    July 6, 2012, with the agency again named as the sole defendant. The complaint alleged
    that Smith‟s rights were violated due to her mental illness and economic circumstances.
    On February 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed Smith‟s amended complaint pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) because the agency is immune from suit under the Eleventh
    Amendment. Smith then timely filed this appeal.
    We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and exercise
    plenary review over the District Court‟s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 
    229 F.3d 220
    , 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
    state a claim pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) is the same as that for dismissing a
    complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Mitchell v. Farcass,
    
    112 F.3d 1483
    , 1489-90 (11th Cir. 1997). In order to survive a dismissal, “a complaint
    must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim to relief that is
    plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
    Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570 (2007)). We will affirm a district court‟s
    2
    dismissal for failure to state a claim “only if, accepting all factual allegations as true and
    construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we determine that the
    plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint.”
    McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 
    554 F.3d 114
    , 115 (3d Cir. 2009). We will summarily
    affirm if the appeal does not present a substantial question, and may do so on any basis
    supported by the record. Murray v. Bledsoe, 
    650 F.3d 246
    , 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
    curiam).
    As the District Court stated, claims against the Delaware Department of Family
    Services are barred by Delaware‟s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See MCI Telecomm.
    Corp. v. Bell Atl.-Pa., 
    271 F.3d 491
    , 503 (3d Cir. 2001). The Eleventh Amendment
    protects a state or state agency from suit, unless Congress has specifically abrogated the
    state‟s immunity or the state has waived its own immunity. See Laskaris v. Thornburgh,
    
    661 F.2d 23
    , 25-26 (3d Cir. 1981). Here, Delaware has not waived its Eleventh
    Amendment immunity to Scott‟s claim. Accordingly, the District Court properly
    dismissed the complaint pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B).
    3