Joseph Aruanno v. Steven Johnson
683 F. App'x 172
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph Aruanno, a civilly committed detainee under New Jersey’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, sued STU Superintendent Steven Johnson and NJ DOC Commissioner Gary Lanigan under § 1983 for failing to protect him from assaults by another resident, J.Z.
- Aruanno alleged he informed both defendants—personally and in writing—of threats by J.Z.; Lanigan said he would “look into it,” Johnson said he was “doing nothing” and cited instruction from a deputy attorney general.
- Aruanno alleged multiple incidents: threats, a physical confrontation with a bloody nose, back injury, and exposure to cigarette smoke near his door (smoking supposedly banned).
- District Court granted IFP but dismissed the original and amended complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failing to state a claim, characterizing allegations as at most negligent or disagreement with professional judgments; denied recusal and declined to appoint counsel/guardian.
- Third Circuit reviewed de novo, accepted the amended-complaint allegations as true, and concluded the facts plausibly stated a failure-to-protect claim (even under a deliberate-indifference standard), vacating and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of failure-to-protect claim under § 1983 | Aruanno: he warned defendants of threats; defendants did nothing; resulting assaults caused harm | Defendants/District Ct: allegations show, at best, negligence or disagreement with professional judgments—not constitutional violation | Third Cir.: Allegations plausibly state a failure-to-protect claim; dismissal was improper; remand for further proceedings |
| Applicable legal standard for civilly committed SVPs (Youngberg vs. deliberate indifference) | Aruanno: deliberate-indifference standard should apply | Defendants: standard may be Youngberg professional-judgment (lesser) or deliberate indifference if treated like prisoners | Third Cir.: Declined to decide definitive standard on appeal; noted plaintiff’s allegations suffice even under deliberate-indifference test; left standard for district court if needed |
| Denial of recusal motions | Aruanno: district judge was biased | District Ct: rulings and dissatisfaction do not show bias | Third Cir.: Affirmed denial—unsupported allegations and displeasure with rulings do not require recusal |
| Appointment of counsel or legal guardian | Aruanno: needed counsel/guardian for competency and ADA grounds | District Ct: no clear incompetence; screening-stage fact-pleading doesn’t require counsel | Third Cir.: No abuse of discretion in denying counsel/guardian; plaintiff failed to show incompetence |
| Tobacco exposure claim | Aruanno: smoke near his cell “sickened” him | Defendants: allegation too vague to show constitutional environmental-harm claim | Third Cir.: Tobacco allegation too vague to state a constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (elements of failure-to-protect claim for prisoners)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (standard for involuntarily committed persons’ care)
- Shaw by Strain v. Strackhouse, 920 F.2d 1135 (Youngberg professional-judgment standard governs some civil-commitment claims)
- Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (mere negligence not a due-process violation)
- Chavarriaga v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., 806 F.3d 210 (accept plaintiff’s allegations as true at screening)
- Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257 (environmental tobacco smoke and Eighth Amendment context)
- Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492 (discretionary standard for appointment of counsel)
- SecuraComm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (displeasure with rulings does not justify recusal)