P S5- 133 NOT 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. 09- 2484

___________ J OS E P H AR UANNO , A ppel l ant

v . Of f i c e rANDR E W BOOKE R; D. O. C. Ad mi n i s tr a t o rP AUL L AGANA ; G EO RG E H A Y M A N ; SI D I nv e s t i ga t orCA PRI CE CH A V ER S; DHS Di r e c t o rM E RR I L L M AI N; DHS Co mm i s s i o n e r , KE VI N R YAN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . N . J . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00305) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e Li nar es

____________________________________ S u b m itte d P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 3 4 .1

J une 2, 2010 B efore: S M ITH , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 10, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM2

J os eph A ruanno, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e yg ra n tin g m o tio n s to d is m is s h is c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n . W e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. A ru a n n o , w h o w a s c i v i l l y c o m m i t t e d t o th e S p e c i a l T r e a t m e n tU n i ti n K e a rn y, N ew J er s eypur s uantt o t he N ew J er s eySexual l yV i ol entPr edat orA ct , N . J . St at . A nn. § 30: 4- 27. 24 ets eq. , fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n D i s tr i ctC our tagai ns tvar i ous empl oy ees of the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof H um an Servi ces ( “D H S”) and the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) . A ruanno al l eged thathe had metw i th D O C A dm i ni s tr at orPaul L agana i n N ovember2006 r egar di ng s om e s t ol en pr operty . H e s t at ed thathe and Lagana al s o di s cus s ed a c r i m i nal compl ai ntA ruanno had s ubm i t t ed aga i ns tC orr ect i ons O ffi cer B o o k er. A ru a n n o f

u rth e r a lleg e d th a t th e n e x t d a yO f f ice r B o o k e r se x u a llya ss a u lted h im in hi s r oom and thr eat ened t o ki l l hi m i f he t ol d w hathad happe ned. A ruanno ave rr ed that he r eport ed the as s aul t , thathe w as pl ace d i n l ock- up forthr ee mont hs , and thathe w as harm ed on a da i l ybas i s . A ruanno s t at ed thathe s poke w i th I nves t i gat orC haver s of the D O C ’s S p e c ial In v e stig a tio n D iv isio n b u t C h a v e rs to ld h im sh e w o u ld n o t p u rsu e h is compl ai ntbeca us e he di d nothave a nyw i tnes s es . A ruanno ave rr ed thathe had w i tnes s es buthe w ant ed C haver s t o as s ur e thei rs afe tybefor e he r evea l ed thei rnames. A ruanno fur theral l eged thatthe Speci al I nves t i gat i on D i vi s i on’ s r efus al t o actencour aged O ffi cer3

B ookerand other s t o cont i nue t o harm hi m unt i l D ece m ber2007, w hen O ffi cerB ooker w as fi r ed fors exual l yhar as s i ng the s t aff . Aru a n n o c l a i me d L a g a n a f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l ys u p e r v i s e a n d i n s tru c tth e s t a f f , DOC C om m i s s i onerG eor ge H aym an fa i l ed t o pr oper l ytr ai n and s upervi s e the other defe ndant s , and D H S C om m i s s i onerK evi n R y an and D H S D i r ect orM err i l l M ai n al l ow ed the D O C t o comm i tthes e “a tr oci t i es . ” A ruanno s oughtdamages , decl ar at oryr el i ef, and an or derof pr ot ect i on fr om fur therr et al i at i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l a i m u p o n wh i c h r e l i e f c o u l d b e g r a n t e d , wh i c h we r e f i l e d b yth e DHS a n d DOC defe ndant s , w i th t he exc ept i on of O ffi cerB ooker . T he D i s tr i ctC our taff or ded A ruanno the opportuni tyt o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt . A ruanno fi l ed a doc um entt i t l ed “A m ended Com pl ai nt ” i n w hi ch he a t t empt ed t o addr es s the def i ci enci es i n the or i gi nal compl ai ntthatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad not ed i n i t s deci s i on. C oncl udi ng A ruanno had not cur ed thos e def

i ci enci es , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai ntfi l ed bythe D H S and D O C defe ndant s , agai n w i th the exc ept i on of O ffi cer B ooker . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.A t lea st w ith re sp e c t to h is d a m a g e s c laim , A ru a n n o ’s a p p e a l w a s p re m a tu re ly 1 fi l ed bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our thad y ett o adj udi cat e A ruanno’ s cl ai m s agai ns tO ffi cer B o o k e r. S a b e r v . F in a n c e A m e ri c a C re d it C o rp ., 8 4 3 F .2 d 6 9 7 , 7 0 1 -0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a s s in c e a d ju d ic a te d th o s e c la im s a n d a f in a l o rd e r h a s b e e n e n te re d . A s s uch, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n the pr es entappea l . C ape M ayG r eene , I nc. v. W arren , 6 9 8 F . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 -85 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). T o the ext entA ruanno’ s cl ai m i s gr ounded i n the Four t eenth A m endment , s ee 2 Y o u n g b e rg v . R o m e o , 4 5 7 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 -1 6 (1 9 8 2 ), A ru a n n o h a s n o t alle g e d f a c ts s uppor t i ng the conc l us i on thatthe conduc tof M ai n and R y an “s hocked the cons ci ence . ” 4 W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of a gr antof a 1 m o tio n to d is m is s f

o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d is p le n a ry. M o n roe v . B ea rd, 53 6 F . 3 d 1 9 8 , 2 0 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e fi nd no err ori n t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. A s expl ai ned bythe D i s tr i ct C our t , A ruanno di d nots t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef a gai ns tD O C defe ndant s L agana and H a ym a n b e c a u s e th e yw e re n o t p e rs o n a lly in v o lv e d in th e h a rm h e a lle g e d ly su f f e re d . See R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d 1195, 1207 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng l i abi l i tyunder § 1 9 8 3 m a yn o t b e b a se d o n a th e o ryo f re sp o n d e a t su p e rio r). A ru a n n o a lso d id n o t sta te a cl ai m forr el i ef ba s ed on an a l l eged f ai l ur e t o tr ai n and s upervi s e bec aus e he di d not a v e r f a c ts s u p p o rtin g th e c o n c lu sio n th a t eith e r L a g a n a o r H a ym a n w a s d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r entt o a r i s k of harm . See G i l l es v. D avi s , 427 F. 3d 197, 207 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( n o t i n g d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f

f e r e n c e r e q u i r e me n tf

o rf a i l u r e - t o - tr a i n c l a i m) . F o rth e s a me r eas on, A ruanno di d nots t at e a f ai l ur e- t o- pr ot ectcl ai m agai ns tD H S defenda nt s M ai n and R y an. See H ami l t on v. L eavy , 117 F. 3d 742, 746 ( 3dC i r . 1997) ( s ett i ng for th el ement s of E igh th A m en d m en t fail u re-to-p rotec t cl aim ). A s n o ted b ythe D istri ct C o u rt , A rua n n o ’s 2S ee N ici n i v. M o rra, 2 1 2 F . 3 d 7 9 8 , 8 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 5 c o m p lain t an d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t ag a in st th e D O C a n d D H S d e f e n d a n ts c o n tain c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n s w ith o u t su p p o rtin g f a c ts. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed A ruanno’ s cl ai m of a c ons pi r acybyC haver s , w hi ch w as al s o uns uppor t ed by anyfactual al l egati on s. A ruanno al s o appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o di s qual i fythe A tto rn e yG e n e ra l f

ro m re p re se n tin g O f

f ice r B o o k e r, m o tio n f

o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, and requestfor i njunct i ve rel i ef. F or the reasons st at ed b ythe D i stri ctC ou rt , these m ot i ons w er e pr oper l ydeni ed. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.