NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________ N o. 07- 3357

_________ E DWARD S AL E RN O, A ppel l ant

v. JO N C O R Z IN E , N .J. G o v e rn o r, in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c ity ; R IC H A R D C O D Y , N .J . F o rm e r A c tin g G o v e rn o r, i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; J A M E S E . M C G R E E V E Y , N .J . F o rm e r G o v e rn o r, in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; N .J. D E P A R T M E N T O F H U M A N S E R V IC E S ; N. J . DI VI S I ON OF M E NT AL HE AL T H; M S . L O RN A H IN E S -C U N N IN G H A M , A s s is ta n t D iv is io n D ir e c to r o f D e p a rtm e n t o f

H u m a n S e rv ic e s , in h e r o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; M S . J O A N R IC H A R D S O N B O W S E R , E s q u ir e , F irst A ss ista n t P u b lic D e f e n d e r, in h e r o f

f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; M R . P A T R IC K R E IL L Y , D e p u tyP u b lic D e f e n d e r, in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; O F F F IC E O F T H E P U B L IC D E F E N D E R , T R E N T O N ,N .J.; N .J. D E P T A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , T R E N T O N , N .J.; D E V O N B R O W N , N .J ., D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s F o rm e r C o m m is s io n e r, in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; J O H N M A IN E , C E O , N .J . S p e c ia l T re a tm e n t U n it- A n n e x ,

in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; G R A C E R O G E R S , N .J . S p e c ia l T re a tm e n t U n it- A n n e x A d m in is tr a to r,

i n h er offi ci al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; P A U L L A G A N A , N .J . S p e c ia l T re a tm e n t U n it- A n n e x , in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; M E R R IL L M A IN , D ir e c to r, N .J . S p e c ia l T re a tm e n t U n it- A n n e x ,

in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; M S . T IN A S P A G N U O L O , U n it D ir e c to r, N .J . S p e c ia l T re a tm e n t U n it- A n n e x ,

i n h er offi ci al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; D R . G R E G O R Y G A M B O N E , P sy ch, i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es;

J E N N A C A C C E S E , F o rm e r P ro g ra m C o o rd in a to r, in h e r o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s;2 M A R IE L E N A M O T T A , P ro g ra m C o o rd in a to r, in h e r o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; R U T H R O T H , R e c re a tio n S u p e rv is o r, in h e r o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; L O U N O R T O N , V o c a tio n a l R e h ab ilita tio n C o u n s e lo r, in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; D R . C A R O L L E S T E R , P sy c h , in h e r o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; D R . P H IL L IP L E A V IT T , P sy c h , in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; D R . K IR E E V , P sy c h , in h e r o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; T O M C A L A B R E S E , P sy ch, i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es;

D R . E P P E L L IT T O , P s y c h , S .T .U . K e a rn e y , N .J ., in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; M R . D E V O N B U L L A R D , S o c ia l W o rk e r, in h is o f f icia l an din d iv idu a l ca p a c iti e s; M S . JU L IE M C B R ID E , i n h er offi ci al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; M R . R E E V E S , S ocialW orker, i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; M R . R O D R IG U E Z , S ocialW orker, i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; M S . T H O M P S O N , S ocialW orker, i n h er offi ci al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; M R . J. M ILE S , B M P T , i n h i s offici al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; D R . A . L E V I N SO N , Psy ch, i n hi s offi ci al and i ndi vi dual capa ci t i es

________ N o. 08- 1019

_________ TE RRY TR AYLOR, A ppel l ant

v. M E R R ILL M A IN , C l i nicalD i rect or of the D ept. of H um an S ervi ces; L O U IS N O R T O N , R ehab i l i t at i on / Job C ou nsel or of the D ept. of H um an S ervi ces; T E S S K E A RN E Y , P rogram C oo rdi natorof the D ept. of H um an S ervi ces; JA C Q U E L IN E O T T IN O , P rogram C oo rdi natorof the D ept. of H um an S ervi ces; PA U L L A G A N A , A s s t . Super i nt endentof the D ept . of C orr ect i ons

________ N o. 09- 2789

_________* H o n . L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern

D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 3 J O S E P H A R U A N N O , A ppel l ant

v. C IN D Y S W E E N E Y , A ss ista n t A d m in istra to r; M E R R IL L M A IN , D .H .S . D IR E C T O R ; GOVE RN OR J ON C OR Z I NE

________ O n A p p ea l from 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 i s tr i ctJ udges : H onor abl e Fai th S. H ochber g ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 03547) H onor abl e D enni s M . C avanaugh ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 02751) H onor abl e Sus an D . W i gent on ( D . C . N o. 2- 08- cv- 04449)

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

O ct ober24, 2011 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

and PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2011)

______ OP I NI ON

______1 W e expr es s ourappr eci at i on t o C hr i s t opherR . M urr ayand A s hl eyM . Spr ague of

C ovi ngt on & B ur l i ng L L P w ho undert ook t o actpr o bono i n the hi ghes ttr adi t i on of the pr ofes s i on. 4 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . E dw ar d Sal erno, T erryT r ay l or , and J os eph A ruanno fi l ed s epar at e pr o s e ac t i ons u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , cla im in g th a t v a rio u s s tate o f f icia ls (“ D e f

e n d a n ts” ) v io late dth e ir ri gh t s und er the F i rs tA m end m ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtenter ed sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst S a le rn o a n dd is m is s e dth e c o m p la in ts o f T ra y lo r a n dA ru a n n o f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im .
I n the ca s es of Sal erno and Tray l or , the D i s tr i ctC ourtfound i n favorof the D ef en d an ts on q u ali fied im m u n ityg rou n d s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ism issedA rua n n o ’s c o m p lain t af

terf in d in g th a t h e h a dp re v io u slya ss e rte dth e sa m e c laim s u n su c c e ss f u lly b e f o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rta n dth is c o u rto n ap p e a l. A ll th re e A p p e lla n ts tim e ly ap p e a le d . W e c o n so lid a ted th e ir ap p e a ls a n dap p o in ted p ro b o n o c o u n se l. 1 I. A ppel l ant s ar e ci vi l l yconfi ned atthe Speci al T r eatm entU ni t( “ST U ”) i n N ew J er s eypur s uantt o the N ew J er s eySexual l yV i ol entPr edat or s A ct( “SV PA ”) . A s partof thei rtr eatm entatST U , A ppel l ant s w er e enc our aged t o part i ci pat e i n “di s cus s i on ther apy , ” dur i ng w hi ch r es i dent s j oi n t o di s cus s thei rs exualhi s t or i es . A ppel l ant s r efus ed to p a rticip a te in th is th e rap ya n d , as a re su lt, w e re d e p riv e do f e m p lo ym e n t an dc e rta in o th e r b e n e f

its, inc lu d in g tele v isio n a n dh y g ien ic ite m s. A p p e llan ts th e n f iled th e ir c o m p lain ts u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a lleg in g th a t D e f e n d a n ts re talia ted a g a in st th e m in2 A ddi t i onal l y , the Salerno C ou rtfou nd that D efen dan t s D evo n B row n, G race R og ers ,

P au l L ag an a, an dJo h n M ain w ere en ti tl ed to su m m aryjud g m en t bec au se th eyare “su p erv isory ” e m p loy ee s an db ec au se re sp o n d ea t sup erior li ab il ityis no t a ba sis fo r § 1 9 8 3 c la im s . See Salerno v. C or z i ne , N o. 06 -3547 , 20 07 W L 21 59 61 1, at*2 n. 6 (D . N . J. J ul y25, 2007) ( ci t i ng Monel lv. N ew Jer s ey Ci t y D ept. of

Soc. Serv. , 436 U . S. 658 (1 9 7 8 )). S a lern o d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th is d e c isio n o n ap p e a l. 3 T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e dA ru a n n o ’s c o m p lain t su a sp o n te p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). 5 vi ol at i on of thei rr i ght s underthe Fi r s tA m endment . I n addi t i on t o damages , eac h A p p e lla n t s o u g h t n o n -m o n e ta ry re lie f. D efe ndant s fi l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s Sal erno’ s Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m w hi ch theysupp ort ed b yan af fi dav i t . T he D i stri ctC ou rttreat ed the m oti on t o d i sm i ss as a M o ti o n fo r S u m m aryJu d g m en t w h ich it gran ted, co n clud ing that D ef en d an ts w ere enti t l ed to qua l i fi ed im m un i ty . In consi deri ng T ray l or’ s cl ai m s, the D i stri ctC ou rtal so 2 found thatD efe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tybutdi s m i s s ed hi s compl ai nt underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. Fi nal l y , the C ourtdi s m i s s ed A ruanno’ s cl ai m on the gr ound that“the al l egat i ons s etforth i n the [c ] om pl ai nt. . . appeart o be s ubs um ed bythe al l egat i ons m ade by [ A ru a n n o in a p re v io u s a c tio n ].” A p p . at 6 5 ; s ee al s o A pp. at67. 3 J ur i s di ct i on w as pr operi n the D i s tr i ctC ourtbas ed on 28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . We r e v i e w de novo the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s gr ant o f a m o tio n to d is m is s , s ee Al s ton v. P arker , 3 6 3 F .3 d2 2 9 , 2 3 2 -3 3 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ), as w e ll a s its e n tryo f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, s e e R e n c h e n s kiv . Wi l l i a ms , 6 2 2 F . 3 d3 1 5 , 3 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ).4 D ism iss a l f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim is a f in a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits f o r c laim p re c lu s io n p u rp o s e s . Se e Fe de ra tedD e p ’t S to re s, In c . v. Mo iti e , 4 5 2 U .S . 3 9 4 , 3 9 9 n .3 (1 9 8 1 ). 6 II. A p p e llan ts c o n ten dth a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlyre lied o n q u a lifie dim m u n ity to d is p o s e o f

S a le rn o ’s a n dT ra y lo r’ s c la im s f o r e q u ita b le re lie f

u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . W e a g re e . H ow ever , w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed A ruanno’ s cl ai m s underthe doctr i ne of c l ai m pr eclus i on. Cl a i m p r e c l u s i o n “ b a r s a p a rtyf r o m i n i t i a t i n g a s e c o n ds u i ta g a i n s tth e s a me adver s arybas ed on the s ame ‘ caus e of a ct i on’ as the fi r s ts ui t . ” D uhaney v . A t t ’ y G en. of U. S. , 6 2 1 F . 3 d3 4 0 , 3 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). C lai m p rec lusion is pro p erlyap p li ed w h ere there has been: “( 1) a fi nal j udgm enton the mer i t s i n a pr i ors ui ti nvol vi ng; ( 2) the s ame part i es orthei rpr i vi es ; and ( 3) a s ubs equents ui tbas ed on the s ame caus es of ac t i on. ” Sher i dan v. NGK Metal s C or p. , 609 F. 3d 239, 260 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . H er e, the “s ame caus e of act i on” and “ fi nal j udgm enton the mer i t s ” el ement s ar e ea s i l ys at i s fi ed, as A ruanno r ai s ed hi s curr ental l egat i ons i n a pr evi ous act i on befor e the D i s tr i ctC ourt , w hi ch the C ourtdi s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m - a j udgm entw hi ch thi s courtaff i rm ed. See

4 A ru a n n o v . S

p a g n u o lo , N o . 0 7 -2 0 5 6 , 2 0 0 7 W L 3 0 2 6 8 3 7 (D .N .J . O c t. 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 ), a ff’d , 2 9 2 F . A p p ’x 1 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e “ s a m e p a rt ie s o r th e irp ri v ie s ” e le m e n t is a ls o s a tis f ie din A ru a n n o ’s c a s e . A ruanno br oughthi s pr evi ous act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC ourtagai ns tfouri ndi vi dual s atthe ST U , i ncl udi ng M err i l l M ai n. A ruanno’ s curr entcompl ai ntal s o names M err i l l M ai n but adds the form ergovernorof N ew J er s eyand the ST U ’ s as s i s t antadmi ni s tr at oras5 N ew J er s ey ’ s budgetanal y s i s demonstr at es thatN ew J er s ey ’ s D epartm entof

C o rr e c tio n s is f

u n d e dp ri m a ri ly b ys ta te f u n d s . See O ffi ce of

L egis l at i ve S ervi ces, D epartm entof C orr ect i ons / St at e Par ol e B oar d: A nal y s i s of the N ew J er s eyB udget , Fi s cal Y e a r 2 0 1 1 -2 0 1 2 , a t 4 , a v a ila b le a t h ttp :// h ttp ://w w w .n jleg .sta te.n

j.us / l egi s l at i vepub/budget_2012/D O C _anal y s i s _2012. pdf. T he D epartm entof C orr ect i ons o p e ra te s N e w J e rs e y ’s f a c iliti e s d e s ig n a te df

o r s e x u a lly v io le n t p re d a to rs . See N .J. S tat. A n n . § 3 0 :4 -2 7 .3 4 (a ) ( W e s t 2 0 1 1 ). 7 defe ndant s . T he t erm “pr i vi ty ” i s us ed mer el yas “a w ayt o expr es s the conc l us i on that nonpartypr eclus i on i s appr opr i at e on anygr ound. ” T a y lo r v . Stu rg e ll , 553 U . S. 880, 894 n .8 (2 0 0 8 ). T hus , the var i ous connec t i ons betw een STU empl oy ees and the N ew J er s ey G overnor ’ s O ffi ce pr ovi de ampl e gr ounds t o fi nd the pr i vi tyr equi r ements at i s fi ed. For exampl e, the pr i m arybudget i ng s our ce f orthe ST U i s the s t at e, and ST U empl oy ees 5 a d v a n c e c o m m o n g o a ls a s a g e n ts o f a sin g le e m p lo y e r. T h is a lig n m e n t o f in ter e sts s a tis f ie s th e p ri v ity re q u ir e m e n t a n dp re c lu d e s A ru a n n o ’s c u rr e n t a c tio n . O n the otherhand, the D i s tr i ctC ourterr ed byappl y i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni tyt o bar th e c laim s o f

S a lern o a n dT ra y lo r f

o r p ro sp e c tiv e re lief. Q u a lifie dim m u n ityp ro tec ts g o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls f ro m c iv il l iab ili tyf

o r a n ya c tio n th a t “d o e s n o t v io late c lea rly es t abl i s hed s t atut oryorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” H

a rlo w v . Fitzg e ra ld , 457 U . S. 800, 818 ( 1982) . H ow ever , i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatqual i fi ed i m m uni tydoes notbaract i ons forpr os pect i ve r el i ef, s uch as an i nj unct i on o r d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t. See, e. g. , Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o f Ku t z to wn , 455 F. 3d 225, 244 ( 3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( “[T ]he defen se of q uali fi ed im m un i tyi s avai l able onl yfor dam ages cl ai m s – n o t f o r c laim s re q u e stin g p ro sp e c tiv e in ju n c tiv e re lief.”); P r es byter i an Chur ch (U . S. A .) v. U ni ted States , 870 F. 2d 518, 527 ( 9th C i r . 1989) ( “Q ual i fi ed i m m uni tyi s an af fi rm at i ve d e f e n s e to d a m a g e lia b ility; it d o e s n o t b a r a c tio n s f o r d e c la ra to ry o r i n

ju n c tiv e re lie f.” ).6 “[T] he cruci al ques t i on r egar di ng w ai veri s w hether[A ppel l ant s ] pr es ent ed the

ar gum entw i th s uffi ci ents peci fi ci tyt o al ertthe di s tr i ctcourt , ” Keenan v . C i t y of P hi la. , 983 F. 2d 459, 471 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , and A ppel l ant s ’ gener al cl ai m s fori nj unct i ve and decl ar at oryr el i ef w er e notenough t o i nform the D i s tr i ctC ourtof thei rpr es entar gum ent th a t q u a lif

ie dim m u n ity d o e s n o t b a r s u c h c la im s . 7 A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt –w h ile c o n d u c tin g its q u a lifie dim m u n itya n a ly sis in T ray l or’ s case – st at ed in passi ng that “D efen dan t s di d n ot vi olat e P l ai nti ff’s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s , ” th e C o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y T r a yl o r ’ s c l a i m i s s u p p o rt e do n l y b y its re a so n in g th a t th e rig h t n o t to p a rticip a te in se x o f f e n d e r tre a tm e n t is n o t cle a rly es t abl i s hed. A pp. at58. T hus , as i n Sal erno’ s cas e, w e r emand T r ay l or ’ s act i on forthe C ourtt o cons i derhi s Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m s i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . 8 I n addi t i on t o thei rcl ai m s fordamages , Sal erno and Tray l orpl eade d cl ai m s for p ro sp e c tiv e re lief. A p p . at 1 0 0 . (S a lern o ’s c o m p lain t, se e k in g “ [ t]o b e re sto re db a c kto th e p o sitio n o c c u p ied b e f o re ” th e c laim e dv io latio n s); A p p . at 1 9 8 (T ra y lo r’s c o m p lain t, se e k in g in

ju n c tiv e a n dd e c lar a to ryre lief ). T h e re f

o re , the D istric t C o u rt e rre din concludi ng thatqual i fi ed i m m uni tybarr ed al l of Sal erno and Tray l or ’ s Fi r s tA m endment c laim s. A lth o u g h w e a g re e w ith D e f e n d a n ts th a t S a lern o a n dT ra y lo r d idn o t sq u a re ly rai se this i ssue befo re the D i stri ctC ou rt , this cou rthas dis cret i on arypo w er t o ad dress 6 i s s ues thatar e r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , part i cul ar l yw her e: 1) the “ar gum ent om i tt ed i n the D i s tr i ctC ourti s a pur e ques t i on of l aw , ” 2) the pr operr es ol ut i on of the l egalques t i on i s “r eas onabl ycert ai n, ” and 3) fai l i ng t o cons i derthe omi tt ed ar gum ent w oul d “r es ul ti n . . . s ubs t ant i al i nj us t i ce. ” B a g o t v. A sh c ro ft , 3 9 8 F . 3 d2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (3d C ir . 2005) . T hati s pr eci s el ythe s i tuat i on her e, as i ti s cl earthatthe doctr i ne of qua l i fi ed im m u n ityd o es n o t bar c lai m s fo r pro sp ec ti v e re li ef –a p u re q u esti o n o f law –an dfa ilu re to c o n sid e r th is iss u e w o u ldu n ju stlyd e p riv e S a lern o a n dT ra y lo r o f a n o p p o rtu n ityto asserttheir§ 1 98 3 clai m s. 79 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng A rua n n o ’s claim in all r esp ec ts. H o w ev er, w e w il l r ev erse the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers di s m i s s i ng Sal erno’ s and Tray l or ’ s § 1983 cl ai m s forpr os pect i ve r el i ef. W e w i l l r emand th e irc la im s to th e D is tr ic t C o u rtf o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .