2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-29-2011 

# J o seph Ar ua nno v

. W i l li a m W al sh

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-2759

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" J os e p h Ar ua nno v

. W i l l i a m W al sh " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 623. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/623ALD
- 270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 2 759

___________ JOSEPH ARUANNO ,

Appellant

v.
WILLIAM T. WALSH

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States Distri ct 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 com

plaint against William T. Walsh, Clerk of the U nited States District
Court for the District of New Jersey

. 1 He also filed a motion for leave t o 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 def endant . T he second complaint na med 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 Distric t Court characterized Aruanno’s c omplaint 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 juris d iction 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). O n review, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment because no substantial issue is present ed 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) (hold ing 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, 89 7

- 9 8 (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 lo st the opportunity to pursue a “ no nfrivolous” and “arguable” claim. See Christopher v. Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). The District Court properly dismissed Aruanno’s complain t. Although Aruanno
asserts that he was denied an opportunity to file a civil complaint agai nst 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, t he complaint was recently dismissed

2 Aruanno stated in his complaint that he mailed a copy of the complaint to the4

by the District Court

. S ee 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 fa ilure to docket th at complaint prevented him from pursuing a non
- frivolous legal claim because t he 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 judi cial officer in the performance of his duty has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his j udicial acts.” ). Aruanno stated in his complaint that his dissatisfaction with Judge Cavanaugh stems from Judge Cavanaugh’s judicial rulings in ot her 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.