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Washington v. State of NY Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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 [email protected]. BPS-327 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

(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

(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

(e)(2)(B).

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to

. Because

Washington has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to

, we

review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). An

appeal may be dismissed if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

2

(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.,

(3d Cir. 2002). We therefore conclude that this appeal is meritless.

Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to

(e)(2)(B).

3