Vincent M. HIGGINS, Appellant, v. Howard L. BEYER, Department of Corrections; William F. Plantier; Grace Rogers; James Dooley; Thomas Moran; Daniel Barrajas; Lillyanne D. Yeager; Linda Cook; Frank Bruno; Anselm Jeeveratnam; Margaret C. Zorsky; Brenda Gibb; Gwinn Goode; Joseph Doe, (last name a fictitious name), in their individual capacity, jointly, severally or in the alternative
No. 99-5556
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Argued April 5, 2002. Filed June 12, 2002.
293 F.3d 683
Dr. Dietz‘s rebuttal testimony did not constitute a Sixth Amendment structural defect in the Re‘s trial. It did not contaminate the fairness of his trial.
At trial, Re put his mental state in issue with his own evaluations and expert psychiatric testimony. He therefore cannot challenge Dr. Dietz‘s rebuttal testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds. Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 425, 107 S.Ct. 2906. Moreover, Dr. Dietz testified that his conclusions of malingering and anti-social disorder did not go to Re‘s mental state at the time of the commission of the crime. The Sixth Amendment was not violated by these events at trial.
Re claims that the lack of notice of the Dietz examination and its scope effectively deprived him of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, because counsel did not have the opportunity to change his strategy to eliminate the use of Dr. Galliani‘s testimony and simply rely on the testimony of Dr. Weintraub. This, of course, begs the question of the notice of the scope of the Dietz examination. Malingering was a fair subject to anticipate in the Dietz exam given the subject of competency to stand trial. Moreover, the 1985 examination, to which Re‘s counsel consented, made him aware, in advance of trial, of the results of the 1984 examination. Finally, we also hold that even if there was an error in this case, it was a harmless error and not a structural defect. See Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 257-58, 108 S.Ct. 1792. Reversals are limited to cases where the deprivation of the right to сounsel affect and contaminate the entire criminal proceeding, and not cases involving the erroneous admission of particular evidence at trial. Id. at 257, 108 S.Ct. 1792. It did not have a “substantial and injurious effect of influence on determining the jury‘s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); United States v. Khalil, 1999 WL 455698 at *2 (E.D.Pa. June 30, 1999). Therefore, since Re‘s arguments regarding notice and scope of the 1984 examination fail, the substantial defect argument fails as well.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, Michael J. Hass, Jeffrey K. Gladden (argued), Trenton, New Jersey, for appellees.
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and ALARCON,* Circuit Judges.
ALARCON, Circuit Judge.
Vincent M. Higgins appeals from the dismissal of his federal civil rights claim that Howard L. Beyer, the Assistant Commissiоner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, and 13 employees of the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (“ADTC employees“) violated
We reverse because we concludе that Higgins‘s pro se complaint, when liberally construed, stated sufficient facts to state a cause of action for a violation of a federal right under
I
Higgins alleged the following facts in his complaint. Higgins served in the United States Army from 1974 to 1978. While in the Army, Higgins injured his left hand, leaving him partially disabled. This partial disability qualified Higgins to receive disability benefits from thе Veteran‘s Administration (“VA“) for the remainder of his life.
In 1992, Higgins pled guilty to the crime of First Degree Aggravated Sexual Assault in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The court sentenced Higgins to a 10-year term of imprisonment to be served at the ADTC in Avenel, New Jersey. The court also imposed a Victims of Crime Compensation Board (“VCCB“) fine in the amount of $1,000, pursuant to section 2C:43-3.1 of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated.
On April 7, 1993, Higgins was transferred from the Monmouth County Correctional Center Facility to the ADTC. On or about April 1, 1998, he received a notification from the VA that his claim for benefits for partial disability had been approved. He was advised that he would receive a check for benefits due from January 1, 1991 to March 31, 1998.
On May 29, 1998, a United States Treasury Department check in the amount of $7,608, made out to Higgins as the payee, arrived at the ADTC. On the same date, Higgins was notified during mail call by an ADTC employee that the check had arrived. He was not handed the check nor did he authorize any prison employee to deposit it in his inmate account. The standard procedure at the ADTC when a check is received is to request the inmate to sign a form acknowledging receipt of the check
Later that day, Higgins wrote four “business remits,” which instructed prison employees to forward money in the amounts of $5,000, $2,000, and two for $200 apiece to various persons. A “business remit” is the term used at the ADTC for an inmate‘s authorization that money be deducted from his account.
On May 31, 1998, Higgins asked the social worker assigned to his wing to find out what had happened to his check. The soсial worker informed Higgins that ADTC employees intended to use part of the proceeds of the VA disability benefits check to pay the outstanding VCCB fine ordered by the New Jersey Superior Court. On the same date, Higgins filed a written complaint addressed to ADTC Superintendent William F. Plantier in which Higgins stated that a VA disability benefits check is not attachable pursuant to
On June 2, 1998, ADTC Assistant Superintendent Grace Rogers sent a letter to Higgins in which she stated that Higgins‘s VA disability benefits check had been received and would be deposited in his inmate account. On June 3, 1998, Higgins received written confirmation that his check had been deposited in his inmate account. On June 9, 1998, Linda Cook, an ADTC social worker, notified Higgins that none of the checks that he had authorized would be sent out until he signed a business remit authorizing the withdrawal of $1,000 to pay the VCCB fine. Higgins refused on the ground that a VA disability benefits check is not attachable pursuant to
On June 10, 1998, Daniel Barrajas, ADTC‘s Assistant Mail Supervisor, аsked Higgins to endorse the VA disability benefits check. Higgins refused. On the same date, Higgins wrote to Superintendent Plantier requesting a written explanation of the disposition of his VA disability benefits check. Higgins also stated that if he did not receive a written explanation by June 12, 1998, he would file an action in the United States District Court. Superintendent Plantier did not reply. Sometime thereafter, ADTC employees deducted $1,000 from Higgins‘s inmate account to pay the VCCB fine ordered by the New Jersey Superior Court.
II
Higgins filed this § 1983 action on August 4, 1998. Prior to filing an answer, the ADTC employees moved to dismiss the complaint on October 14, 1998, pursuant to
While the motion to dismiss was pending, Higgins filed a pro se pleading styled as a “NOTICE OF MOTION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT/DEPOSITION TO CONSOLIDATE THESE ARGUMENTS WITH THE ABOVE DOCKET CASE AND/OR ORDER OF PROTECTION/INJUNCTION.” In this motion, Higgins alleged that ADTC employees brought false charges against him, resulting in his confinement in administrative segregation for 365 days and the denial of his access to the courts, in retaliation for
On June 10, 1999, without the benefit of oral argument, the district court granted the ADTC employees’ motion to dismiss this action, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In a footnote to its memorandum opinion, the distriсt court stated: “In light of this Court‘s granting of the motion to dismiss plaintiff‘s complaint as to the fourteen individual defendants, the later-filed motion of pro se plaintiff Vincent Higgins for a preliminary injunction shall be denied as moot.” The court did not explain how Higgins‘s discrete claim that ADTC employees retaliated against him for asserting his right to access to the courts was rendered moot by his alleged failure to state a claim for the deprivation of his property in violation of
Higgins has timely appealed the district court‘s final judgment in this § 1983 action. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
III
Higgins contends that the district court erred in ruling that he failed to аllege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the ADTC employees violated § 1983. He argues that the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim under § 1983 either for depriving him of money derived from a VA disability benefits check in violation of
Our review of the dismissal of an action pursuant to
We must determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the pleadings, the plaintiffs may be entitled to relief, and we must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. The complaint will be deemed to have alleged sufficient facts if it adequately put the defendants on notice of the essential elements of the plaintiffs’ cause of action. Since this is a § 1983 action, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we do not inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims. Thus, the district court‘s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be affirmеd only if it appears that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief.
Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, as Higgins filed his complaint pro se, we must liberally construe his pleadings, and we will “apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.” Holley v. Dep‘t of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir.1999).
Section 1983 authorizes a person to file a private cause of action against state actors for a deprivation of rights protected by a federal statute or the United States Constitution.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suite in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
A.
We must first consider whether Higgins alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of
Payments of benefits due or to bеcome due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States arising under such laws nor shall the exemption therein contained as to taxation extend to any property purchased in part or wholly out of such payments....
In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a “violation of a federal right, and not merely a violation of federal law.” Pa. Pharmacists Ass‘n v. Houstoun, 283 F.3d 531, 535 (3d Cir.2002) (en banc) (quotation omitted). This Court recently explained that “a plaintiff alleging a violation of a federal statute may not proceed under § 1983 unless 1) the statute creates enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities within the meaning of § 1983 and 2) Congress has not foreclosed such enforcement of the statute in the enactment itself.” Id. (quotations omitted).
To create a right enforceable under § 1983, the federal statute at issue must meet three conditions:
First, Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so “vague and amorphous” that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. Third, the statute must unambiguously impose a binding obligation on the States. In other words, the provision giving rise to the asserted right must be couched in mandatory, rather than precatory, terms.
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997) (citations omitted). Once all three conditions are met, a rebuttable presumption arises that the right is enforceable under § 1983. Id. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353; Pa. Pharmacists Ass‘n, 283 F.3d at 535. “This presumption may be reached by showing that Congress expressly or impliedly foreclosed an action under § 1983.” Pa. Pharmacists Ass‘n, 283 F.3d at 535.
Congress may impliedly foreclose a remedy under § 1983 “by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under § 1983.” Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353.
Our holding that a violation of a veteran‘s rights under
In response to the prison officials’ argument that Congress could not have intended to prohibit the taking of a veteran‘s disability benefits for his or her maintenance and care as allowed by a number of states, the Ninth Circuit observed: “But if Congress wanted to create exceptions to [non-attachment or seizure], it knew how to do so.” Id. at 896. In Nelson, the Ninth Circuit applied
In this matter, Higgins did not consent to the taking of money from his inmate account. Instead, he warned the ADTC employees that the use of his disability benefits to satisfy the VCCB fine violated
The Supreme Court has not yet construed
In his opposition to the State‘s action, Bennett argued that the Arkansas statute violated the Supremacy Clause because it was in conflict with
The Court granted Bennett‘s petition for certiorari and reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Id. at 397-98, 108 S.Ct. 1204. The Court reasoned as follows:
We think — contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas — that there is a clear inconsistency between the Arkansas statute and
42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Section 407(a) unambiguously rules out any attempt to attach Social Security benefits. The Arkansas statute just as unambiguously allows the State to attach those benefits. As we see it, this amounts to a “conflict” under the Suрremacy Clause — a conflict that the State cannot win.
We recognize that the language used by Congress in protecting Social Security benefits in
We next turn to the question whether the New Jersey statutes are preempted under the Supremacy Clause because they are inconsistent with
The ADTC employees rely on the Fifth Circuit‘s decision in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Davis, 616 F.2d 828 (5th Cir.1980), in support of their proposition that the VCCB is not a creditor within the meaning of
In the matter sub judice, the intent of the New Jersey Legislature in enacting the CICA was not aimed at providing for the care and maintenance of persons convicted of violent crimes. The CICA‘s purpose is to compensate victims of violent crimes for their injuries. Moreover, subsequent to Davis, the Supreme Court rejected, in the context of Social Security benefits, the very argument the state made in Davis. Bennett, 485 U.S. at 397-98, 108 S.Ct. 1204. As we have explained, the Supreme Court interpreted the language оf
A creditor is a person or entity to whom a debt is owed. Black‘s Law Dictionary 375 (7th ed. 1999). A debtor is a person who owes an obligation to another. Id. at 411. Pursuant to the CICA, a court must order a person convicted of a violent crime to pay an assessment to the VCCB.
The ADTC employees also maintain that the deduction of funds derived from Higgins‘s VA disability benefits check did not violate
The ADTC employees further assert that
As noted previously, Congress‘s purpose in enacting
B.
Higgins also challenges the dismissal of his claim that the ADTC employees took his VA benefits without notice or a hearing, in violation of his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
In situations where the State feasibly can provide a predeprivation hearing before taking property, it generally must do so regardless of the adequacy of a postdeprivation tort remedy to compen-
sate for the taking. Conversely, in situations where a predeprivation hearing is unduly burdensome in proportion to the liberty interest at stake, or where the State is truly unable to anticipate and prevent a random deprivation of a liberty interest, postdeprivation remedies might satisfy due process.
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990) (citations omitted).
Higgins alleged in his complaint that the ADTC employees took money from his inmate account without providing him with a predeprivation hearing. The ADTC employees argue that they did not improperly deny Higgins a predeprivation hearing because the New Jersey Torts Claims Act provides Higgins with an adequate postdeprivation remedy to seek money damages for the seizure of his property. Higgins did not allege facts that demonstrate that his funds were seized as the result of a random, negligent, or unauthorized act of an ADTC employee. Rather, Higgins alleged that the ADTC employees were acting under the authority of an established state procedure for seizing a prisoner‘s funds to satisfy court-ordered fines. The ADTC employees have argued before this Court thаt they were acting pursuant to
Higgins has alleged sufficient facts to establish that he was entitled to a predeprivation notice and hearing.3 Moreover, Higgins‘s procedural due process rights are enforceable under § 1983. See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 125, 110 S.Ct. 975 (“A § 1983 action may be brought for a violation of procedural due process....“). The district court erred in dismissing Higgins‘s procedural due process claim under
IV
The district court did not disclose the basis for the dismissal of Higgins‘s claim that the ADTC employees retaliated against him because he exercised his federal constitutional right to seek access to the courts for an adjudication of his claims that he was deprived of his rights under
Conclusion
Higgins‘s complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a § 1983 claim that he was deprived of his rights under
Costs are awarded to Higgins.
Notes
In addition to any disposition made pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:43-2, any person convicted of a crime of violence ... shall be assessed at least $100.00, but not to exceed $10,000.00 for each such crime for which he was convicted which resulted in the injury or death of another person.... When a defendant who is sentenced to incarceration in a State correctional facility has not, at the time of sentencing, paid an assessment for the crime for which he is being sentenced or an assessment imposed for a previous crime, the court shall specifically order the Department of Corrections to collect the assessment during the period of incarceration and to deduct the assessment from ... any personal account established in the institution for the benefit of the inmate.