Joseph Phipps, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Lab ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 19-1855
    ___________
    JOSEPH T. PHIPPS, JR., Appellant
    v.
    PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; LANCASTER UNEMPLOYMENT
    OFFICE; BOARD OF APPEALS, Pennsylvania Department of Labor; MAIN OFFICE,
    Pennsylvania Department of Labor
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-02275)
    District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    September 3, 2019
    Before: MCKEE, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed September 18, 2019)
    ___________
    OPINION*
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    Pro se appellant Joseph Phipps appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his
    complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291. For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    Phipps filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of Labor, the
    Lancaster Unemployment Office, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of
    Review. He alleged that the Lancaster Unemployment Office failed to mail him
    paperwork he needed to pursue a claim, and the Board of Review then refused to hear his
    appeal. He further alleged that the Department of Labor wrongly intercepted part of his
    tax refund. He claimed that these defendants violated his rights under the Due Process
    Clause and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and requested $20 million in damages.
    Phipps proceeded in forma pauperis, and a Magistrate Judge screened the case
    under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the complaint be
    dismissed as barred by the defendants’ sovereign immunity. The District Court approved
    and adopted the report and recommendation, and Phipps filed a timely notice of appeal.
    He has also filed a motion to add new defendants to the case.
    We agree with the District Court’s analysis. In general, sovereign immunity
    protects states and their agencies from suit in federal court. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer
    Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 
    506 U.S. 139
    , 144–46 (1993); Karns v. Shanahan, 
    879 F.3d 504
    , 512–13 (3d Cir. 2018). We have previously ruled that this immunity extends to
    the Department of Labor, see Hampe v. Butler, 
    364 F.3d 90
    , 97 (3d Cir. 2004); Blanciak
    v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 
    77 F.3d 690
    , 692 (3d Cir. 1996), and the same goes for the
    other defendants, both of which are components of the Department of Labor, see 
    71 Pa. 2
    Stat. and Cons. Stat. § 62; 43 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. § 762; see generally Betts v. New
    Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 
    621 F.3d 249
    , 254–55 (3d Cir. 2010). This immunity does not
    apply if the state has waived it or Congress has set it aside, but neither has happened here.
    See Quern v. Jordan, 
    440 U.S. 332
    , 340–41 (1979) (concluding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity); Lavia v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 
    224 F.3d 190
    ,
    195 (3d Cir. 2000) (“The Pennsylvania legislature has, by statute, expressly declined to
    waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); cf. Wagstaff v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 
    509 F.3d 661
    , 664 (5th Cir. 2007) (rejecting argument that the Fair Debt Collection Practices
    Act waived federal sovereign immunity).1
    Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment, with the clarification that the
    dismissal is without prejudice. See In re Orthopedic “Bone Screw” Prod. Liab. Litig.,
    
    132 F.3d 152
    , 155 (3d Cir. 1997). We deny Phipps’s motion to add parties.
    1
    Phipps has argued that the District Court improperly “took into account certain factors
    such as my inability to pay fees and my inability to have a lawyer represent me in this
    matter.” Br. at 1. We disagree. Rather, the District Court simply applied the standard
    sovereign-immunity rules. Further, in light of the defendants’ immunity, the District
    Court did not err when it declined to grant Phipps an opportunity to amend. See
    generally Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 
    293 F.3d 103
    , 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
    3