The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMOS BROWN, :
a.k.a., Nabbidin Ali, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-CV-4268
:
DEPARTMENT OF :
SOCIAL SERVICES, :
Defendant. :
MEMORANDUM
Pappert, J. July 13, 2026
Amos Brown, also known as Nabbidin Ali, brings this pro se civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following
reasons, the Court will grant Brown in forma pauperis status and dismiss his
Complaint.
I1
Brown sues the “Department of Social Services”2 for allegedly violating his
constitutional rights. (See Compl. at 2-3, 7-8.) He lists a New Jersey address for
himself, but states that he relocated to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the Winter of
1 The facts set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Brown’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 2
(“Compl.”)), which is comprised of the Court’s form complaint for use by self-represented
litigants and a typewritten supplement. The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the
Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing system.
2 Although Brown identifies the Defendant as the “Department of Social Services,” (see
Compl. at 2-3, 7-8), the Court understands Brown to bring claims against Pennsylvania’s
Department of Human Services (“DHS”), based on events at the Philadelphia County
Assistance Office – Somerset District, located at 2701 N. Broad Street, #2, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the Court will refer to the Defendant as DHS.
2019. (Id. at 2, 4.) “Still facing homelessness, [Brown] went to 2701 N. Broad St. for
help and put in applications for all entitlements (housing, Medicaid & food stamps).”
(Id. at 4.) Because he was still struggling with homelessness, Brown went to the
Philadelphia Housing Authority on February 19, 2026, and learned that “after waiting
over seven (7) years that [he] was still on the ‘waiting list.’” (Id. at 4, 11.) Brown went
back to 2701 N. Broad Street and the DHS workers there “indicated that due to the
pandemic four (4) years of files were ‘DELETED.’” (Id. at 4.) Brown contends that this
was “illegal” and “improper record-keeping” and violated his due process rights. (Id. at
4, 8, 9.) Brown asserts physical and mental injuries and seeks monetary damages. (Id.
at 5.)
II
The Court will grant Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it
appears that he is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if,
among other things, it fails to state a claim. The Court must determine whether the
Complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 566 (2007)); Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275,
286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021). At the screening stage, the Court will accept the facts alleged in
a pro se complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and
ask only whether that complaint contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.
Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021), abrogation on other grounds
recognized by Fisher v. Hollingsworth, 115 F.4th 197 (3d Cir. 2024).
As Brown is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally.
Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.,
704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)). However, conclusory allegations do not suffice.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Additionally, § 1915 also requires the dismissal of claims for
monetary relief brought against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); see also Ellison v. Smith, 778 F. App’x 195, 196 (3d Cir. 2019)
(per curiam) (“A District Court is authorized to dismiss a complaint sua sponte on the
immunity grounds of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) when it is clear on the face of the complaint
that a party is immune from suit.” (citation omitted)).
III
Brown asserts that DHS intentionally deleted files in violation of his federal due
process rights. The vehicle by which federal constitutional claims may be brought in
federal court is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and
must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color
of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
A state and its agencies are not “persons” who may be liable § 1983. See Will v.
Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989); see also Karns v. Shanahan, 879
F.3d 504, 519 (3d Cir. 2018) (“States or governmental entities that are considered ‘arms
of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes are not ‘persons’ under § 1983.”
(cleaned up)). Further, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is immune from suit for
money damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and
has not waived that immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court. See Pennhurst State
Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1984); Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr.,
968 F.3d 299, 309-10 (3d Cir. 2020); see also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 8521-22. State
agencies, such as DHS, are likewise immune from such suits. See Betts v. New Castle
Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 253 (3d Cir. 2010) (“State governments and their
subsidiary units are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh
Amendment.”); see also Yerger v. Northumberland Cnty. Assistance Off., No. 24-2513,
2024 WL 5040397, at *1 (3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2024) (per curiam) (“Pennsylvania DHS and, by
extension one of its local offices, Northumberland [County Assistance Office] are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because they are agencies of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which has not waived its immunity here.” (citation
omitted)); Dix v. Torrance State Hosp., No. 24-1766, 2025 WL 3769105, at *1 (W.D. Pa.
Dec. 31, 2025) (“The DHS is an arm of the state entitled to assert Pennsylvania’s
Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Sherle v. Pa. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., No. 21-140, 2022
WL 17469468, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2022) (dismissing § 1983 claim against DHS as
barred by the Eleventh Amendment). Accordingly, Brown’s § 1983 claim against DHS
for damages must be dismissed.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Brown leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). This
dismissal will be without prejudice. See Merritts v. Richards, 62 F.4th 764, 772 (3d Cir.
2023) (stating that a dismissal on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity “should
normally be without prejudice”). Leave to amend will not be given, as amendment
would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108, 110 (3d Cir. 2002).
An appropriate order regarding dismissal follows, which shall be entered
separately. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
Gerald J. Pappert, J.