168 F.Supp.3d 711 (D.N.J. 2016), C. A. 14-3413 (WJM), Aruanno v. Davis

Docket Nº:Civil Action 14-3413 (WJM), 14-5099 (WJM), 14-5100 (WJM)
Citation:168 F.Supp.3d 711
Opinion Judge:MARTINI, District Judge:
Party Name:Joseph Aruanno, Plaintiff, v. Sarah Davis, Defendants. Joseph Aruanno, Plaintiff, v. State of New Jersey, Defendants. Joseph Aruanno, Plaintiff, v. Sarah Davis, Defendants.
Attorney:Civil Action Nos. 14-3413 (WJM), 14-5099 (WJM), 14-5100 (WJM) JOSEPH ARUANNO, Plaintiff Pro Se
Case Date:March 09, 2016
Court:United States District Courts, 3th Circuit, District of New Jersey
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 711

168 F.Supp.3d 711 (D.N.J. 2016)

Joseph Aruanno, Plaintiff,

v.

Sarah Davis, Defendants.

Joseph Aruanno, Plaintiff,

v.

State of New Jersey, Defendants.

Joseph Aruanno, Plaintiff,

v.

Sarah Davis, Defendants.

Civil Action Nos. 14-3413 (WJM), 14-5099 (WJM), 14-5100 (WJM)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 9, 2016

Page 712

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 713

JOSEPH ARUANNO, Plaintiff Pro Se

OPINION

MARTINI, District Judge:

Joseph Aruanno, who is civilly committed to the Special Treatment Unit under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act, has been granted in forma pauperis status in at least 33 civil rights actions in this Court. After this Court dismissed, and the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of at least 13 civil rights cases since 2011, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, accompanied by an Opinion, directing Aruanno to show why this Court should not deny his requests to proceed in forma pauperis in the above captioned non-habeas civil actions because he has abused the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis and his allegations do not show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Aruanno responded to the Order to Show Cause, arguing that he is in imminent danger, that this Court should appoint a guardian, that it would be unfair to deny in forma pauperis status in habeas corpus cases, and that this Court improperly dismissed his prior civil rights cases. This Court finds that Aruanno has abused the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis and none of the allegations in the three actions presently before the Court indicates that Aruanno faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court will deny his applications to proceed in forma pauperis in the above cases and administratively terminate these actions subject to reopening in the event that Aruanno prepays the $400 filing and administrative fee in each or any case, provided he does so within 30 days of the date of the entry of the Order accompanying this Opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Aruanno seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis and to thereby file two civil rights complaints and a petition for mandamus without payment of the $400 filing and administrative fees in each case. Specifically, he seeks to bring Aruanno v. Davis, Civil Number 14-3413 (WJM), against Sarah Davis, the Assistant Superintendent of the Special Treatment Unit, alleging that “ certain staff refuse to close our cell doors as needed[, which] permits other residents/patients to watch us using the toilet [that] is right in the doorway where some masturbate, etc.” (Civ. No. 3413, ECF No. 1 at 6.) Aruanno further asserts that officials allow residents to shield themselves with a four-foot curtain, but he cannot afford to buy a curtain. He further claims that “ when sleeping, coming from the shower, etc., there are many female staff members who [ ] see us changing, etc., then say we were exposing ourselves to them, which then keeps us here longer.” Id. He alleges that “ curtains are not necessary if the doors were fixed to slide closed, as we were told when we moved in here, but defendant Sarah Davis just informed me in writing that the doors will not be adjusted and that curtains are a ‘ PRIVILEGE’ that will be taken away, which has happened, which has forced this submission, and others, requesting that

Page 714

this court address our PRIVACY RIGHTS and how they apply to a therapeutic existence here.” Id. at 7. Aruanno seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages of ten million dollars.

Aruanno also seeks to file without prepayment of fees Aruanno v. Yates, Civil Number 14-5100 (WJM), against Administrator Yates, Assistant Superintendent Davis, and John/Jane Does 1-20. He claims that he is “ being denied legal access such as a law library,” research material, forms, envelopes, typewriters, photocopies, and paralegals. (Civ. No. 14-5100, ECF No. 1 at 6.) He asserts that “ the injury inflicted as a result is such as the U.S. Supreme Court denying petition No. 12-9040 by way of letter dated 7/3/2013 because I could not obtain PHOTOCOPIES in time.” 1 Id. He further alleges that “ the state, JOHN/JANE DOES, et al., fail/refuse to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act; the Law Against Discrimination, etc., where they have held, and upheld, for years that I am an incompetent person lacking intellectual cognitive abilities, need certain medications to be able to gain reality, etc., but then, as an involuntarily civilly committed person, fail/refuse to APPOINT A ‘ GUARDIAN,’ etc., to assist me in properly and fairly accessing the court[s].” Id.

Aruanno also seeks to file in forma pauperis a “ Petition for Writ of Mandamus” against the State of New Jersey in Aruanno v. State of New Jersey, Civil Number 14-5099 (WJM). Aruanno states in this pleading that he is submitting the petition for mandamus “ in reply to the letter I just received from the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals dated 8/10/14 which was in reply to my request about the outcome of my Petition for Rehearing En Banc” (Civ. No. 14-5099 (WJM), ECF No. 1 at 2.)

Aruanno seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in these three non-habeas civil actions. Instead of granting in forma pauperis status, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Aruanno to show cause why the Court should not deny his requests to proceed in forma pauperis because he has abused the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis and his allegations do not show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

II. DISCUSSION

The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP