Aruanno v. Davis
168 F. Supp. 3d 719
| D.N.J. | 2016Background
- Joseph Aruanno, civilly committed under New Jersey's Sexually Violent Predator Act, repeatedly sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status to file multiple civil rights suits and a mandamus petition in federal court.
- The District Court noted Aruanno had been granted IFP in at least 33 civil actions and had at least 13 dismissals affirmed by the Third Circuit since 2011.
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Aruanno to explain why IFP should not be denied as an abuse of the privilege and because his claims did not demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The three current non-habeas filings alleged: (1) violations of privacy at the Special Treatment Unit due to doors/curtains (Davis); (2) denial of legal access and failure to appoint a guardian or accommodations under ADA/Rehabilitation Act (Yates); and (3) a mandamus petition responding to an appellate clerk’s letter (State of New Jersey).
- Aruanno argued he faced imminent danger, requested a guardian be appointed, claimed denial of IFP in these cases would be unfair compared to habeas cases, and disputed prior dismissals as improper.
- The court concluded Aruanno had abused IFP privileges, found no credible imminent danger allegations, denied appointment of a guardian, and rejected his challenges to prior dismissals; it denied IFP for the three cases but allowed reopening if Aruanno prepays filing fees within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should deny IFP as abuse of privilege | Aruanno contends dismissals were improper and he should continue to proceed IFP | Court relied on extensive history of meritless filings and affirmed dismissals to show abuse | Denied IFP as Aruanno abused privilege; may reopen if fees prepaid |
| Whether the "imminent danger" exception to IFP denial applies | Aruanno alleges privacy issues and risk of sexual victimization could escalate to violence or death | Defendants (court) assert allegations are speculative, non-immediate, and not threatening serious physical injury | Imminent danger exception not met — allegations are vague/speculative and not imminent |
| Whether court should appoint a guardian under ADA or Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) | Aruanno asks appointment of a guardian to assist access to courts under ADA and due to claimed incompetence | Court notes no verifiable evidence of legal incompetence; Third Circuit rejected ADA-based guardian requirement | Denied appointment of guardian; filings show ability to litigate and no expert evidence of incompetence |
| Whether denial of IFP here would unfairly impact habeas corpus filings | Aruanno argues habeas appeals are different and should remain IFP | Court notes current matters are non-habeas; separate habeas IFP practice is unaffected and Aruanno has received IFP in habeas matters post-Order | Court will not bar IFP in habeas cases; denial limited to these non-habeas suits |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (statute aims to ensure indigent access to federal courts)
- In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (court may deny IFP to prolific abusers of filing privilege)
- Zatko v. California, 502 U.S. 16 (denial of IFP to repeat filers with numerous frivolous petitions)
- Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (denial of IFP for repetitive, frivolous certiorari petitions)
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (definition and timing of "imminent danger" for § 1915(g) exception)
- Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (imminent danger exception requires specific, credible allegations)