SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3593-18

A.M.M.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

CINDI COLLINS and

DR. NICOLE PAOLILLO,

Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted January 4, 2021 – Decided April 15, 2021

Before Judges Suter and Smith.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-2779-16.

A.M.M., appellant pro se.

Respondents have not filed briefs.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3593-18

Plaintiff A.M.M.1appeals the November 30, 2018 order2that denied his 

motion to enter a default judgment against defendants, Attorney General, Cindi 

Collins and Dr. Nicole Paolillo (the State defendants). We affirm the order. 

On April 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Law Division against

the State defendants, alleging his civil commitment under the Sexually Violent 

Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38, and transfer to the Special 

Treatment Unit (STU), violated N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30(b) and was inconsistent 

with In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006).

Plaintiff argued defendant Dr. Nicole Paolillo issued a confidential forensic 

report about plaintiff that was utilized at his commitment hearing in 2014. He 

asserts Dr. Paolillo was not qualified to issue the report. 

Plaintiff served the complaint against the State defendants in April of 

2016. A track assignment notice was issued on April 20, 2016, providing a 450-

day period for discovery. The State defendants did not file an answer to the 

1 We use initials because our opinion references court records that are 

confidential. See R. 1:38-3(b)(11). 

2 Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed March 6, 2019. On June 21, 2019, we 

granted plaintiff's motion to file his notice of appeal as within time. We also 

granted his motion to proceed as indigent. 
3

A-3593-18

complaint, although they filed a motion requesting time to answer or to 

otherwise plead which was granted. Plaintiff did not request the entry of default.

On August 15, 2016, the State defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 

complaint with prejudice. On October 3, 2016, plaintiff's complaint and any

crossclaims against the State defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The

October 3, 2016 order indicates the motion was opposed. Plaintiff did not appeal 

that order. 

More than two years later, on October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a 

Declaration for Entry of Default against the State defendants seeking entry of a 

default judgment because the State defendants had not filed an answer to the 

2016 complaint. Plaintiff's motion was denied on November 30, 2018, however,

because plaintiff's complaint had been dismissed on October 3, 2016, with 

prejudice.

Plaintiff appeals the November 30, 2018 order.

3 On appeal, plaintiff raises 

the following arguments:

POINT I 

THE DEFENDANTS' VIOLATIONS OF THE 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

MANDATES IN THE CASE A.H.B., COURT PER 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b. THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT 

3 We granted plaintiff's motion to file his notice of appeal as within time. 
4

A-3593-18

RESPOND TO THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

AND SUMMONS WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED

POINT II 

DEFENDANT PAOLILLO WAS PROVIDING 

EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY AT THE 

PLAINTIFF’S SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR 

HEARING AND THE DEFENDANT CINDI 

COLLINS MALICIOUSLY PURSUED THE 

COMMITMENT HEARING BASED UPON 

DEFENDANT PAOLILLO'S UNQUALIFIED 

EXPERT TESTIMONIES TO SUPPORT THE NEED 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF COMMITMENT WITHOUT 

HER BEING A PSYCHIATRIST AND WITHOUT 

MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

MANDATES COURT PER N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b.

POINT III 

THE DEFENDANTS WERE INFORMED THAT IF 

THEY FAIL TO ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFF'S 

ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE DEFENDANTS'

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 

OF THE COURTS MANDATES IN THE CASE 

A.H.B. UNDER N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b WITHIN THE 

ALLOWED PERIOD, A JUDGMENT MAY BE 

ENTERED AGAINST THEM FOR THE RELIEF 

DEMANDED.

POINT IV 

THE DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO 

RESPONDED [sic] TO THE PLAINTIFF'S 

ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE DEFENDANTS'

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 

OF THE COURTS MANDATES AND IN THE CASE 
5

A-3593-18

OF A.H.B. 386 N.J. SUPER. 16 (2006), QUOTED 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b, WITHIN THE INITIAL 35 

DAYS, WITHIN THE INITIAL 60 DAYS, WITHIN 

THE INITIAL 90 DAYS, AND/OR WITHIN THE 

INITIAL 450 DAYS OF DISCOVERY ASSIGNED 

BY THE COURT.

Plaintiff argues the State defendants failed to respond to his complaint

within the time allowed, and they were advised that if they did not respond, a

judgment may be entered against them. Plaintiff requests a judgment of $500 

per day for each day he has been in the STU, and an additional five million 

dollars in compensation. He argues Dr. Paolillo was not qualified to diagnose 

him with various mental disorders or to give an opinion about whether he is a 

sexually violent predator because she is not a psychiatrist. 

Plaintiff's complaint filed against the State defendants in 2016 raised 

precisely the same arguments plaintiff raises in this appeal. His complaint was 

dismissed on October 3, 2016, with prejudice. The October 3, 2016 order 

provided that the motion was opposed. Plaintiff had forty-five days from 

October 3, 2016, to appeal the dismissal order. See R. 2:4-1(a). "An appeal 

from a final judgment must be filed with the Appellate Division within fortyfive days of its entry . . . ." Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 540 (2011). 

Plaintiff did not appeal the order of dismissal. He is well out of time to do so.
6

A-3593-18

On October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enter a default 

judgment against the State defendants in the litigation that was dismissed with 

prejudice two years earlier. The trial court denied the motion. The record 

supports entry of that order. There no longer was any complaint against which 

to enter a default judgment because it was dismissed. Plaintiff never appealed 

the earlier dismissal order. He never filed to vacate the order. Plaintiff

complains that the State defendants did not file an answer to the complaint 

within the additional time they had requested. However, they filed a motion to 

dismiss the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), which was granted. That procedure 

is authorized by the Rules. See R. 4:6-2. Plaintiff cannot file a collateral action

now to challenge an earlier order he did not appeal. See State v. Smith, 43 N.J. 

67, 74 (1964) (explaining that a collateral proceeding is not a substitute for a 

direct appeal from a prior order that adjudicated the same claims in a prior 

collateral proceeding). Therefore, we affirm the November 30, 2018 order,

denying plaintiff's request to enter a default judgment.

After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable legal principles, 

we conclude that plaintiff's further arguments are without sufficient merit to 

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.