Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-16-2006
Washington v. State of NY
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1924
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Washington v. State of NY" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 195.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/195
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BPS-327
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-1924
____________
MARY ELAINE WASHINGTON,
Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; SAVE-A-THON,
(Sewing Machine, Fabric & Craft Centers);
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
doing business as New York City Transit Authority (N.Y.C.T.A.)
_____________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-03076)
District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares
________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
September 8, 2006
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 16, 2006)
________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Mary Elaine Washington, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s
dismissal of her complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). For the
reasons that follow, we will dismiss this appeal as meritless.
Washington initially filed a complaint alleging a due process violation by all
named defendants related to:
conspiracy, criminal facilitation, trade defamation, credit-line denials,
undue influence, invasions of privacy, infringement of intellectual
properties’ (copyrights) public and private domains, deviate unconsented
sodomy, criminal negligence, harassment, depletion of social security
accrual benefits and any defendant’s other offenses committed, under their
concerted criminal facilitation.
Washington did not allege facts supporting any of these claims. The District Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice with respect to the state defendants, the New York
and New Jersey Departments of State, on the basis of sovereign immunity. With respect
to the remaining defendants, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, but
permitted Washington to amend the complaint to set forth facts in support of her claims.
Washington then filed an amended complaint which purported to set forth eight
causes of action but did not provide a cognizable factual foundation for them. Unable to
ascertain the basis for her complaint, the District Court held that it failed to state a cause
of action and dismissed it with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because
Washington has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we
review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
appeal may be dismissed if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
2
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
It appears from Washington’s amended complaint that she was previously
employed by at least one of the defendants, that she was terminated from her position, and
that she was denied unemployment benefits. It is difficult to ascertain any other facts
from the amended complaint, and we are therefore unable to determine the precise basis
for Washington’s lawsuit. Given the foregoing, we conclude that the District Court
correctly dismissed Washington’s complaint and amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, after affording Washington an opportunity to
amend and clarify her complaint. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
114 (3d Cir. 2002). We therefore conclude that this appeal is meritless.
Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3