QUARLES v. BONTEMPO et al, No. 2:2023cv01601 - Document 6 (E.D. Pa. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 5/4/23. 5/4/23 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE.(mas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
QUARLES v. BONTEMPO et al Doc. 6 Case 2:23-cv-01601-JFL Document 6 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _____________________________________ KEVIN L. QUARLES, Plaintiff, : : : v. : : DOMINIC J. BONTEMPO and : JASON GOLDBERG, : Defendants. : _____________________________________ No. 23-cv-1601 OPINION Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. United States District Judge May 4, 2023 Plaintiff Kevin Quarles, who is incarcerated at SCI-Phoenix, initiated the abovecaptioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of his constitutional rights arising from an alleged unnecessary operation performed on him, for which he did not consent. He also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and, for the following reasons, the official capacity claims under § 1983 against the two individual Defendants are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.1 DISCUSSION Quarles’s Complaint names Defendants Jason Goldberg and Dominic Bontempo in both their individual and official capacities. See Compl. 2, ECF No. 2. 1 Where a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen the complaint and to sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 1 050423 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-01601-JFL Document 6 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 3 With respect to Goldberg, an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court that seek monetary damages. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1984); A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schs., 341 F.3d 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2003). “Because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections is a part of the executive department of the Commonwealth, it shares in the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Lavia v. Dep’t of Corrs., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000). Suits against state officials acting in their official capacities are really suits against the employing government agency, and as such, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. A.W., 341 F.3d at 238; see also Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 8521-8522, it and its departments, as well as its officials sued in their official capacities, are immune from suits filed in federal court. Accordingly, Quarles’s official capacity claims against Goldberg are essentially claims against the Department of Corrections, which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. To the extent that Quarles asserts official capacity claims against Bontempo, an employee of Suburban General Hospital, such claims are not cognizable because Suburban General is a private entity. See Kreis v. Northampton Cnty. Prison, No. 21-2360, 2022 WL 4236692, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2022) (stating that official capacity claims are “inapplicable to suits against private parties where the entity is also susceptible to suit”) citing Owens v. Connections Cmty. Support Programs, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 791, 796 (D. Del. 2012) (“Generally, a suit against a [ ] public officer in his or her official capacity is used to compel that officer to take some official action [and that] concept . . . is inapplicable to suits against private parties where the entity is 2 050423 Case 2:23-cv-01601-JFL Document 6 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 3 also susceptible to suit.”). Even if official capacity suits against individuals who work for private companies are cognizable, the suit would, in effect, be one against the company for whom that individual works. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 (1985). CONCLUSION The official capacity claims, only, against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge 3 050423
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
