Kreutzberger v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
684 F. App'x 107
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Kreutzberger sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) and its Secretary John E. Wetzel alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and age discrimination under the ADEA.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); District Court dismissed ADA and ADEA claims as barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- District Court dismissed with prejudice, concluding amendment would be futile because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- On appeal, Kreutzberger argued generally that dismissal was premature and sought discovery but did not invoke Ex parte Young or expressly argue that his official-capacity request for prospective injunctive relief against Secretary Wetzel avoided sovereign immunity.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the legal conclusion de novo and affirmed dismissal, holding the Commonwealth and its DOC immune and rejecting newly raised arguments on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA and ADEA claims may proceed against the Pennsylvania DOC in federal court | Kreutzberger asserted entitlement to litigate claims and sought discovery to develop evidence | Commonwealth argued Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies | Held: DOC is immune; ADA and ADEA claims dismissed against DOC |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity was abrogated by Congress under ADA/ADEA | Kreutzberger implicitly contended Congress authorized suit or that dismissal was premature | Defendants argued Supreme Court rulings defeated congressional abrogation for ADA and ADEA | Held: Congress did not validly abrogate state immunity for ADA or ADEA; claims barred |
| Whether an official‑capacity claim for prospective injunctive relief against Secretary Wetzel survives sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young | On appeal, Kreutzberger argued Ex parte Young permits prospective relief against Wetzel | Defendants contended Eleventh Amendment bars the suit and plaintiff did not invoke Ex parte Young below | Held: Argument waived because not raised in district court; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate (futility of amendment) | Kreutzberger argued dismissal was premature and discovery should be allowed | Defendants argued immunity made amendment futile | Held: De novo review found amendment would be futile due to Eleventh Amendment; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Port Auth. Trans‑Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299 (1990) (Eleventh Amendment bars private suits against states absent consent or valid abrogation)
- Lavia v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 224 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2000) (Pennsylvania has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Congress did not validly abrogate states' sovereign immunity under the ADA)
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (Congress did not validly abrogate states' sovereign immunity under the ADEA)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (limits on sovereign immunity for prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
- Heffernan v. Hunter, 189 F.3d 405 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard that review is plenary for legal conclusions)
- Tri‑M Group, LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. 2011) (arguments raised for first time on appeal are generally waived)