2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-29-2011

Joseph Aruanno v. William Walsh

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2759

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Joseph Aruanno v. William Walsh" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 623.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/623
ALD-270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2759

___________

JOSEPH ARUANNO,

Appellant

v.

WILLIAM T. WALSH

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-2505)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 18, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 29, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Joseph Aruanno appeals an order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We 

will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
2

I.

Aruanno, who is civilly confined at the Special Treatment Unit (“STU”) in 

Kearney, New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), 

filed a pro se complaint against William T. Walsh, Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey.

1

 He also filed a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

In his complaint, Aruanno alleged that the Mr. Walsh refused to file two 

complaints which Aruanno claimed that he mailed to the Office of the Clerk for filing. 

The first complaint named the Honorable Dennis Cavanaugh of the United States District 

Court for the District Court of New Jersey as defendant. The second complaint named 

Paul Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, as defendant. The 

District Court construed Aruanno’s complaint as attempting to assert a denial of access to 

courts claim against Mr. Walsh for his alleged failure to file those two complaints.

By order entered June 8, 2011, the District Court granted the IFP motion but 

dismissed the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), concluding that it failed to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. This appeal followed.

 

1 Although the District Court characterized Aruanno’s complaint as a 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 action, it technically should have been brought as a Bivens action since the 

Defendant is a federal employee. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the 

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971).

 
3

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a District Court’s sua 

sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim is plenary, requiring us to draw 

all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 

220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). On review, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 

10.6; see also Erie Telecomms. v. Erie, 853 F.2d 1084, 1089, n.10 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding 

that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record).

Like prisoners, individuals who are involuntarily committed to mental institutions 

have the right to access the courts. See Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 897-98 (9th 

Cir. 1995). An inmate raising an access to courts claim must show that the denial of 

access caused him to suffer an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 

(1996). An actual injury occurs when the prisoner is prevented from or has lost the 

opportunity to pursue a “nonfrivolous” and “arguable” claim. See Christopher v. 

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). 

The District Court properly dismissed Aruanno’s complaint. Although Aruanno 

asserts that he was denied an opportunity to file a civil complaint against Mr. Fishman, as 

the District Court noted, the record reflects that Aruanno’s complaint against Mr. 

Fishman was docketed on August 6, 2010.

2

 Indeed, the complaint was recently dismissed 

 

2 Aruanno stated in his complaint that he mailed a copy of the complaint to the 
4

by the District Court. See Aruanno v. Fishman, No. 10-4085, 2011 WL 

2293397 (D.N.J. June 8, 2011). Accordingly, it is clear that Aruanno was not prevented 

from filing that complaint.

Although Aruanno’s complaint against Judge Cavanaugh does not appear to have 

been docketed, Aruanno cannot establish that the alleged failure to docket that complaint

prevented him from pursuing a non-frivolous legal claim because the complaint would 

have been subject to dismissal on the ground of absolute judicial immunity. See 

Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006) (“A judicial officer in the 

performance of his duty has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his 

judicial acts.” ). Aruanno stated in his complaint that his dissatisfaction with Judge 

Cavanaugh stems from Judge Cavanaugh’s judicial rulings in other cases that Aruanno 

has filed in the District Court. Accordingly, the allegations in Aruanno’s complaint are 

insufficient to state a claim for relief.

Because any amendment of Aruanno’s complaint would have been futile, the 

District Court’s dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate. See Foman v. Davis, 

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

As this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the judgment of 

the District Court. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

 

Clerk’s Office for filing in August 2010.