2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ircuit 6-20-2007 

# Hunte rson v

. D i s a b ato P re c e de nt i al or Non-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4409

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ircuit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Hunt e r s on v

. Di s a b at o " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 905. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007/905NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4409

________________ NE I L HUNT E RS ON, A ppel l ant v. M A R Y K E A T IN G D IS A B A T O , (F o rm er N JS P B C h airm an ); A N D R E W B . C O N S O V O Y , E S Q . , (F o rm er N JS P B C h airm an ); R A C H E L C H O W A N IE C , (F o rm er N JS P B B d . M em b er); R O L A N D O G O M E Z -R IV E R A , (N JS P B B d . M em b er); F R A N K S C H U M A N N , (F o rm er N JS P B B d . M em b er); R U B Y J. W A S H IN G T O N , (N JS P B B d . M em b er); JA M E S N . H O G A N , (F o rm er N JS P B B d . M em b er); M IC H A E L C A R L IN , E S Q . , (F o rm er N JS P B E x ec u ti v e D ir . ); D O U G L A S C H E IS A , E S Q . , (F o rm er E x ec u ti v e D ir . ); W IL L IA M F A U V E R , (F o rm er C o m m . N JD O C ); V IC T O R D ' IL IO , (F o rm er C h ief N JD O C -B O P ); K A T H L E E N W E IC H N IK , (S p ec ial A sst. T o the C o m m isi o n er); D O N A L D R O B E R T S , (S u p erv isor N JD O C L ab o ratory ); G A R Y H IL T O N , (F o rm er N JD O C C h ief o f S taff ); D E B B IE F A U N C E , (N J D O C C h ie f I/ A ); M IC H A E L B O K A R , D .A .G .; J A M E S H A R R IS , D .A .G .; H O W A R D M C C O A C H , D .A .G .; M A R IO P A P A R O Z Z I, (N JD O C B O P , A sst. C h ief/N JS P B C h airm an );

W IL L IA M S T R O L L O , (N JD O C -B O P S P O ); P A U L W E N T Z E L , (F o rm er N JD O C -B O P D P S D O # 7 ); C A L V IN W E A T H E R B Y , (F o rm er N JD O C -B O P A S P S D O # 7 ); L E O N A R D D O M A N S K I, (F o rm er N JD O C -B O P A D P S D O # 7 ); V IN C E N T P IC C U R E L L I, (N JD O C -B O P S P O D O # 7 ); R O N H O L V E Y , (N JD O C I/A ); T IM O T H Y M U R P H Y , (N JS P B H . O . ); R O N A L D D E S T E F A N O , (N JD O C -B O P H . O . );

M IC H A E L M C K E E N , (F o rm er A d m inistrator S S C F );

D O N D O H E R T Y , (N JD O C IS S ); P E T E R W . V A N D E R S T IN E , D S G (N J S tat e P o li ce ); J O H N D O E #1 ( N J St at e Pol i ce) ; J O H N D O E #2 ( N J St at e Pol i ce)

### 2 ____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 00677) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay23, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L , H A R D IM A N and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J une 20, 2007)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM I n 2006, s t at e i nm at e N ei l H unt er s on fi l ed a pr o s e ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyagai ns tovertw o dozen of fi ci al s of the N ew Je rse yS tate P a ro le B o a rd , N e w Je rse yD e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s a n d o th e r sta te o f f icia ls (h e re in a f ter“ th e D e f

e n d a n ts” ). H u n ter so n a lleg e d n u m e ro u s c o n stitu tio n a l an d sta te vi ol at i ons ar i s i ng fr om the D efe ndant s ’ conductbegi nni ng i n 1994 w hi l e H unt er s on w as i ncar cer at ed and/ oron par ol e. Pr i ort o s ervi ce on the D efe ndant s , the D i s tr i ctC ourts ua s p o n te d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915A ( b) ( 1) . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtfound thatH unt er s on onl yal l eged e vent s occurr i ng

### 3

fr om 1994 t o 2001, and thus the 2006 compl ai ntw as notfi l ed w i thi n the N ew J er s ey tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . H unt er s on fi l ed a mot i on t o amend the j udgm ent , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and ourr evi ew of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s dism issal i s p lena ry . T o u rsch er v . M cC u ll o u g h , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e m u st a c c e p t H u n ter so n ’s a lleg a tio n s a s tru e a n d d ra w a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s ther efr om . See i d. H u n ter so n ’s c o m p lain t alle g e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yv a rio u s a c tio n s c o m m itt e d f ro m 1 9 9 4 th ro u g h 2 0 0 1 , inc lu d in g a c tio n s d u rin g p a ro le r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs and par ol e hea r i ngs betw een 1994 a nd 1998. See C om pl ai ntat 10- 60. T he compl ai ntal s o as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed habe as r el i ef i n 1998 w i th r es pectt o the par ol e pr ocee di ngs , thatH unt er s on w as or der ed r el eas ed i n 2001, that thi s C ourtr ever s ed and r emanded the habe as pr ocee di ngs i n 2002, and thati n 2004 the D i s tr i ctC ourtdi s m i s s ed the mat t eras m ootbecaus e H unt er s on w as arr es t ed on new c h a rg e s a n d re tu rn e d to c u s to d y . S e e id . a t 2 , 4 3 -4 4 . A l though the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s an af fi rm at i ve def

ens e, R obi ns on v. J ohns on, 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), a c o m p lain t ca n b e d ism iss e d f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim i f the al l egat i ons s how thatr el i ef i s barr ed underthe r el evants t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . See J ones v. B ock, 127 S. C t . 910, 920- 21 ( 2007) ( r ecogni zi ng that“[w ] hethera part i cul arA s the D i s tr i ctC ourtr ecogni zed, the Thi r d C i r cui thas nevers quar el yaddr es s ed 1 w h e th e ra d i s tr i c tc o u rtm a y s ua s pont e d is m is s a c la im a s tim e -b a rr e d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A (b )(1 ). H o w e v e r, itis w e ll-es tab lish e d th a t a d istric t co u rt m a yd ism iss a c iv il rig h ts s u it fo r f

a ilu re to sta te a c laim w h e re th e f a c ts a lleg e d in th e c o m p lain t p lain ly demonstr at e thata caus e of a ct i on has notbeen br oughtw i thi n the appl i cabl e l i m i t at i ons p e ri o d . S e e B e th e l v . J e n d o c o C o n s t. C o rp ., 5 7 0 F .2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). Fur therm or e, s ever al othercourt s of appe al s have a ffi rm ed s ua s pont e di s m i s s al s on sta tu te o f lim itatio n s g ro u n d s. S e e , e.g ., P in o v . R y a n , 4 9 F .3 d 5 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); N a sim v . W a rd e n , M a ryla n d H o u s e o f C o rr e c tio n , 6 4 F .3 d 9 5 1 (4 C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). th 

### 4 g ro u n d f o r o p p o sin g a c laim m a yb e th e b a sis f o r d ism iss a l f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim depends on w hetherthe al l egat i ons i n the compl ai nts uffi ce t o es t abl i s h thatgr ound, not o n th e n a tu re o f

th e g ro u n d in th e a b stra c t”) . T h u s, a d istric t co u rt m a ysu a sp o n te di s m i s s a cl ai m as t i m e- barr ed under28 U . S. C . § 1915A ( b) ( 1) w her e i ti s appar entfr om th e c o m p lain t th a t th e a p p lica b le lim itatio n s p e rio d h a s ru n . H u n ter so n ’s § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n is 1 governed bythe N ew J er s eytw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . See G i bs on v. Super i nt endentof N . J . D ept . of Law & Publ i c Safe ty - D i vi s i on, 411 F. 3d 427, 435 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H er e, the l as tact i on al l eged byH unt er s on occurr ed i n 2001, m aki ng i tappar ent fro m the f

ac e o f th e C o m p lai n t th at th e tw o -y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s ex p ir ed w ell b ef o re he fi l ed s ui ti n 2006. T hi s i s true eve n w i th r es pectt o H unt er s on’ s chal l enge t o the cons t i tut i onal i tyof hi s par ol e r evoca t i on, w hi ch i s s ubj ectt o the del ay ed ac crual rul e of H e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ), a n d its p ro g e n y . U n d e r H e c k , a pl ai nt i ff may notbr i ng a § 1983 ac t i on foral l eged unc ons t i tut i onal confi nement“i f s ucce s s i n thatW e exp res s no o pini on as t o w hetherH un t ers on ’s rel ease w ou l d rende r an otherw i se 2 t i m el ycl ai m perm i s s i bl e underH eck. 

### 5 a c tio n w o u ld n e c e s s a ri ly d e m o n s tr a te th e in v a lid ity o f th e c o n f in e m e n t o r i ts d u ra tio n ,” W i l ki ns on v. D ot s on, 544 U . S. 74, 81- 82 ( 2005) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) , unl es s the

p l a i n t i f f d e m o n s tr a t e s th a tth e i m p r i s o n m e n tw a s i n v a l i d a t e d o rc a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y a fede r al court ’ s i s s uance of a w r i tof habe as corpus . H eck, 512 U . S. at486- 87. A n act i on al l egi ng thata par ol e r evoca t i on w as cons t i tut i onal l yi nfi rm fal l s i nt o thi s cat egoryof cas es . See W i l l i ams v. C ons ovoy , 453 F. 3d 173, 177 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he caus e of a ct i on forthes e ca s es acc rues notatthe t i m e the pl ai nt i ff kne w of orhad r eas on t o know of the i njury , bu tatthe ti m e the im pri sonm ent i s i nv al i dated. G i bson , 41 1 F . 3d at43 5; s ee al so W a llac e v . K a to , 1 2 7 S . C t. 10 9 1 , 1 0 9 5 (2 0 0 7 ) (c a u se o f a c tio n a c c ru e s w h e n p lain tiff is ab le t o “f

il e su itan d o b tai n reli ef ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T her e i s no pos s i bl e s cena r i o underw hi ch H eck’ s del ay ed ac crual rul e w oul d s ave H u n ter so n ’s c laim . T o th e e x ten t th e in iti a l g ra n t o f h a b e a s re lief

in 1 9 9 8 (p rio r to th is C ourt ’ s r ever s al i n 2002) t empora r i l yi nval i dat ed hi s i m pr i s onm ent , anyr el at ed caus e of act i on expi r ed i n 2000. E ven as s um i ng, ar guendo, thatH unt er s on’ s appar entr el eas e on p aro le i n 2 0 0 1 , see C o m p lai n t at2 , so m eh o w ren ew ed h is cau se o f a cti o n , this C o u rt ’s su b se q u e n t re v e rsa l o f

th e in iti a l g ra n t o f

h a b e a s re lief

ter m in a ted H u n ter so n ’s r ig h t to br i ng a § 1983 cl ai m i n 2002. Fi nal l y , becaus e H unt er s on’ s habea s pet i t i on w as 2

### 6

ul t i m at el ydeni ed as m oot , H unt er s on’ s i m pr i s onm entw as neveri nval i dat ed and a ny a tte m p t to b ri n g a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a f te r 2 0 0 2 w o u ld b e s u b

je c t to th e H e c k b a r. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm . H u n ter so n ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l is d e n ied a s m o o t.