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- 3499

___________ J OS E P H AR UANNO ,

A ppel l ant v. GE OR GE HAYMAN, J E NNI F E R V E L E Z a n d ANNE M I L GR AM , A ppel l ees

____________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( N o. 06- cv- 0296) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

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

M ay27, 2010

___________ B efore: M C K E E , C hief J ud ge, and R E N D E L L and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 14, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : A pp el l ant J oseph A ruan n o a p p eal s fr om t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s grantof ap pell ees’2

m o tio n to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ) f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . W e w ill a f f i r m. I. J os eph A ruanno i s a tw i ce- convi ct ed s ex off ender . I n 1994, w hi l e i n Fl or i da, he expos ed hi m s el f t o t w o adol es centgi r l s as theyw er e w al ki ng hom e fr om s chool and engage d i n l ew d conducti n t hei rpr es ence . A s a r es ul tof thi s i nci dent , A ruanno pl ed g u ilty to s e c o n d -d e g re e le w d c o n d u c t, a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to te n y e a rs ’ p ro b a tio n . J .A . 4 6 . J us tt w o y ear s l at er , i n 1996, A ruanno s exual l ym ol es t ed an e i ght - y ear - ol d gi r l w ho had been pl ay i ng on t he fr onts t eps of herhous e i n W i l dw ood, N ew J er s ey . A j uryconvi ct ed A ruanno of s econd- degr ee s exual as s aul t , and he w as s ent ence d t o t en y ear s i n pr i s on, and di s qual i fi cat i on fr om par ol e forfi ve y ear s . J . A . 47. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on of the N ew J e r s e yS u p e r i o rCo u r ta f f i r me d t h e c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . Th e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C o u rtd en ied c erti fica ti o n . S tat e v . A rua n n o , 7 9 3 A . 2 d 7 1 6 (N . J. 2 0 0 2 ) (t ab le op . ). I n A pr i l 2004, w hi l e A ruanno w as s t i l l s ervi ng hi s pr i s on s ent ence , the St at e of N ew J er s ey( her ei nft er“the St at e”) fi l ed a pe t i t i on t o i nvol unt ar i l ycomm i tA ruanno pur s uantt o t he N ew J er s eySexual l yV i ol entPr edat orA ct( “SV PA ”) , N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 24 et s eq. Par t i al l ydue t o A ruanno’ s r epea t ed i ns i s t ence thathe be appoi nt ed new couns el , a hea r i ng on t he pet i t i on w as nothel d unt i l M ay9, 2005, and A ruanno w as d e ta in e d u n til th a t tim e p u rs u a n t to a te m p o ra ry c o m m itm e n t o rd e r. J .A . 4 9 -5 0 . A tt he comm i t m enthear i ng, the St at e pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof D r . V i vi an3

S h n a id m a n , a p sy c h o lo g ist. D r. S h n a id m a n tes tifie d th a t A ru a n n o w a s a c h ro n ic p a ra n o id s chi zophr eni c, butherdi agnos i s expl i ci t l yrul ed outdi agnos es of exhi bi t i oni s m and pedophi l i a. J . A . 54. N evert hel es s , D r . Shnai dm an opi ned thatA ruanno’ s s chi zophr eni a, w h en co m b ined w ith h is prev iou s v iolen t con d u ct, cre ated a “ v eryh igh ” risk o f f u ture v io len c e . J.A . 5 5 . In p a rticu lar , b e c a u se A ru a n n o re f u se d to tak e p sy c h o tro p ic m e d ica tio n to tre a t h is s c h izo p h re n ia, h e w o u ld c o n tin u e to su f f e r f ro m p sy c h o tic d elus ion s w h ich w o u ld ren d er se x o ff en d er treatm en t use less. A cc o rdin g to D r. S h n aidm an , A rua n n o w o u ld h av e se ri o u s d ifficu ltyco n tr o ll ing h is sex u all yp red atory behavi orw i t houtunder goi ng t r eatm entforhi s s chi zophr eni a. J . A . 55- 56. A ruanno t es t i fi ed on hi s ow n behal f atthe hea r i ng. H e deni ed comm i t t i ng ei t her t he Fl or i da ort he N ew J er s eyoffe ns e, and t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved the St at e had f i l ed the comm i t m entpet i t i on i n r etr i but i on forhi s deci s i on t o go t o t r i al forthe N ew J er s ey offe ns e, r athert han ac cept i ng a dea l t o pl ead gui l t y . J . A . 51. A ruanno w as al s o gi ven the o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t th e tes tim o n yo f h is o w n p sy c h o lo g ist, b u t af ter m e e tin g w ith A ruanno, t he ps y chol ogi s tr epor t ed thathe w as “unabl e t o r enderan opi ni on t o a re a s o n a b le d e g re e o f

m e d ic a l c e rt a in ty.” J .A . 5 4 . T he s t at e courtfound thatA ruanno s uffe r ed fr om a ment al abnorm al i t yw hi ch cr eat ed “s ubs t ant i al , s i gni fi cant , s ever e di ffi cul t ycontr ol l i ng hi s s exual l yvi ol ent b e h a v io r,” a n d g ra n te d th e S ta te ’s p e titio n f o r i n v o lu n ta ry c o m m itm e n t. J .A . 5 8 . A ru a n n o a p p e a led th e o rd e r, an d th e A p p e llate D iv isio n a f f irm e d . In re C iv ilT he compl ai ntw as appar ent l yfi l ed w hi l e hi s appea l fr om the s t at e court ’ s or der 1 of ci vi l comm i t m entw as s t i l l pendi ng. “W her e the pl ai nt i ff i s a pr o s e l i t i gant , the courthas an obl i gat i on t o cons t rue the 2 co m p lai n t l ibera ll y . ” G il es v . K ea rne y , 5 7 1 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 4 C o m m itm e n t o f

J .A ., 2 0 0 7 W L 6 0 9 2 8 4 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 7 ). O n J anuary20, 2006, A ruanno fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntand ac company i ng m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p au peris i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . J . A . 18- 21. C ons t rued l i ber al l y , the compl ai ntas s ert ed thatA ruanno’ s due

1 2 pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed byt he pr ocedur e us ed bythe St at e t o comm i thi m . A ft er s cr eeni ng t he compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) , the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed A ruanno i n form a p au

peris s t atus butdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntas fr i vol ous . T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtreas on ed thatt he sole r em edyavail able t o A ruanno w as a w ri tof h abeas co rpus, a n d th a t th e c laim a ss e rte d in h is c o m p lain t w o u ld n e c e ss a rilyim p lyth e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n f in e m e n t, in v io la tio n o f H e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ). J .A . 2 8 -3 0 . A ruanno appe al ed, and w e vac at ed the di s m i s s al and r emanded forfur t her p ro c e e d in g s . A ru a n n o v . N e w J e rs e y , 2 1 5 F e d . A p p ’x 1 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ A ru a n n o I” ). C it ing W il k inso n v . D o tson , 5 4 4 U . S . 7 4 (20 0 5 ), w e n o ted th at j u d g m en t i n A rua n n o ’s f a v o rwo u l d n o tn e c e s s a r i l yr e s u l ti n h i s r e l e a s e ; r a t h e r , s u c c e s s o n h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms w oul d ent i t l e A ruanno onl yt o a new ci vi l comm i t m enthear i ng. A ruanno I , 215 Fed. A pp’ x at158. I n Ap r i l 2 0 0 7 , t h e S t a t e f i l e d a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s th e c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o F e d . R.T he St at e cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe amended 3 c o m p la in t b e c a u s e it “ re la te d b a c k ” to th e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. W e re je c t th is a rg u m e n t. See B ow er s v. N C A A , 346 F. 3d 402, 418 ( 3d C i r . 2003) and C al l ahan v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, 207 F. 3d 668, 670 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng E del m an v. J or dan, 415 U . S. 651, 6 6 4 -7 0 (1 9 7 4 )). N o r is A ru a n n o ’s § 1 9 8 3 c laim , w h ich re late s b a c k to th e d a te o f h is o ri g inal p lead ing , ti m e-b arred . S ee H o d g e v . U . S . , 5 5 4 F . 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e have j ur i s di ct i on overA ruanno’ s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 4 5 C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , ar gui ng t hatA ruanno’ s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed bythe hear i ng w hi ch r es ul t ed i n hi s comm i t m ent . O n J ul y29, 2008, the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed a n o rd e r d is m is s in g A ru a n n o ’s c o m p la in t w ith o u t p re ju d ic e , h o ld in g th a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 d id n o t p ro v id e a c a u se o f a c tio n a g a in st th e S tate , an d th a t th e S tate w a s e n tit led to im m u n ityu n d e r th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. A ru a n n o th e n m o v e d f

o r le a v e to f

ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, w h ich w a s g ra n ted in J anuary2009. T he amended compl ai ntnamed as defe ndant s the C om m i s s i onerof the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C or r ect i ons , G eor ge H aym an, the C om m i s s i onerof the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof H um an Servi ces , J enni ferV el ez, and the A t t orneyG ener al of the S t at e of N ew Jer sey , A nn e M i l gram , al l i n thei r offi ci al capac i t i es. O n A pr i l 9, 2009, t he St at e fi l ed anotherR ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. I n an or derand l et t eropi ni on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s A ruanno’ s amended compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . J . A . 3- 10. A ruanno t i m el yappea l ed the 3 d ism iss a l. 4 II. A ru a n n o ra ise s th re e iss u e s o n a p p e a l: (1 ) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled toW e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the q u esti o n o f w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt 5 pr oper l yi nt erpr et ed the l aw of the ca s e. C ooperD i s t r i b. C o. v. A m ana Refr i ger at i on, Inc . , 1 8 0 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 6 fol l ow t he l aw of the ca s e; ( 2) w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yr el i ed upon the d e c isio n s o f

N e w Je rse ysta te c o u rts; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r th e p ro c e d u re u se d to c o m m it A ruanno un der the S V P A viol at ed A ruanno ’s con st i tuti on al ri gh tt o d ue p rocess . A . L aw of the C ase A ruanno ar gues t hati n gr ant i ng the N ew J er s eyoffi ci al s ’ R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, t he D i stri ctC ou rtfai l ed to com plyw i t h the l aw of the case. “T he law of the case 5 doctr i ne pos i t s t hatw hen a c our tdeci des upon a rul e of l aw , thatdeci s i on s houl d cont i nue t o govern t he s ame i s s ues i n s ubs equents t ages i n t he s ame cas e. ” Fees er s , I nc. v. M i chae l Foods, I nc. , 591 F. 3d 191, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng A r i zona v. C al i forni a, 460 U . S. 605, 618 ( 1983) ) ( al t er at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A ruanno poi nt s t o ourFebruary2007 deci s i on, A ruanno I , i n w hi ch w e r ever s ed the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f

A ru a n n o ’s c o m p lain t, as n e c e ss a rilyim p ly in g th e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n f in e m e n t. H ow ever , contr aryt o A ruanno’ s as s ert i on, A ruanno I di d nothol d t hatA ruanno h a d in f a c t p led leg a llyv iab le c laim s. R a th e r, itn o ted th a t A ru a n n o ’s c laim s, if su c c e ss f u l, w o u ld e n tit le h im to a n e w c iv il co m m itm e n t h e a rin g , b u t n o t n e c e ss a rilyto r el eas e. I d. at158. I n ot herw or ds , A ruanno I di d notdeci de the i s s ues w hi ch w er e s ent b a c k to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt o n re m a n d , a n d w h ic h a re n o w p e n d in g b e f o re u s o n a p p e a l.T he ques t i on of w hethert he D i s t r i ctC ourti m pr oper l yr el i ed upon the dec i s i ons of 6 N ew J er s eycour t s i s a mat t erof l aw overw hi ch w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew . See U ni t ed S tat es v . S ti n so n , 5 9 2 F . 3 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). W e exerci se pl enaryrevi ew ov er the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on t o d i sm i ss 7 A ru a n n o ’ s c o m p l a i n tu n d e rR u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , C a p o g r o s s o v . S u p r e m e C o u r to f N e w J e r s e y, 588 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , acc ept i ng as true the fa ct s as pl ed i n t he compl ai nt , and dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n A ruanno’ s favor . O dd v. M al one, 538 F. 3d 202, 205 7 T he “l aw of the ca s e” doc t r i ne i s t her efor e i nappos i t e. B . I m pr operR el i ance on Stat e Law A ruanno cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed s o heavi l yupon deci s i ons i s s ued by N ew Jerse y ’s st ate c o u rt s tha t i t eff ec ti v elyab d icated it s resp o n sibil ityas th e “ p ri m ary an d fin al arb it er o f f

ed era l r igh ts. ” K o v ats v . R u tgers, 74 9 F . 2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 6 n . 5 (3d C ir . 6 1984) . A ruanno i s i ncorr ect . T he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade appr opr i at e r efe r ence s t o s t at ec o u rt d e c isio n s in o rd e r to e x p lain th e ju d icia l in terp re tatio n a n d a p p lica tio n o f th e sta tu te w hos e cons t i tut i onal i t yt he C our tw as eval uat i ng— t he SV PA . M or eover , the D i s t r i ct C ou rtw as ent i t l ed to l oo k to st at e-courtdecis i on s, even on fede ral con st i tuti on al i ssues, and r el yon t hem for thei rper s uas i ve val ue. See C har l es W . v. M aul , 214 F. 3d 350, 357 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“S tat e c o u rtd ec isi o n s . . . are relev an t and o ften p ersu asiv e.”).

C . C on st i t uti on ali t

y of the S V

P A C om m i tm ent Proc edu re A ru a n n o a rg u e s th a t sin c e th e p ro c e d u re u se d b yth e S tate to c iv ill yc o m m it h im p u rsua n t t o the S V P A v iolated h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o d u e p roc ess, th e D istri ct C o u rt e r r e d i n d i s mi s s i ng hi s c ompl a i ntfo rfa i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m unde rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 2 (b)(6 ). 7(3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

In f a c t, th e S V P A is a c iv il, n o t cr im in a l, statu te. T h e S V P A a llo w s a c o u rt to 8 author i ze t empora r ycomm i t m entbas ed on an ex p a rte s ubm i s s i on m ade bythe A t t or ney G ener al , N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 28( g) , butr equi r es thatanyper s on s o comm i t t ed be a ffor ded 8 A ccor di ng t o A ruanno, t he pr oces s aff or ded t o hi m underthe SV PA w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci enti n fourr es pect s : ( 1) the St at e w as perm i t t ed t o obt ai n an ex p a rte t em po raryorder of detent i on againstA ruanno w i t ho ut appoint i ng cou nsel t o ad vis e hi m and w i t houthol di ng a hea r i ng atw hi ch A ruanno coul d cont es tthe det ent i on; ( 2) t he St at e w as perm i t t ed t o us e i nform at i on el i ci t ed fr om A ruanno t o s uppor ti t s cas e for A ruanno’ s comm i t m ent , even though A ruanno had notbeen w arned orgi ven an oppor tuni t yt o cons ul tw i t h orbe r epr es ent ed bycouns el ; ( 3) the St at e w as onl yr equi r ed to sa ti sfya “ clea r an d co n v incin g ” stan d ard o f e v iden ce in o rde r t o o b tai n A rua n n o ’s comm i t m ent , r athert han the more demandi ng “bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ” s t andar d; and ( 4) t he St at e w as perm i t t ed t o ci vi l l ycomm i tA ruanno w i t houtthe pr ot ect i ons aff or ded by a ju rytrial. T h e v ali d ityo f A rua n n o ’s co n sti tuti o n al claim s turn s o n w h ethe r th e S V P A ’s c o m m itm e n t h e a rin g p ro c e ss is tru lyc iv il an d re g u lato ryin n a tu re , o r w h e th e r it is actual l ya cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng m as quer adi ng as ci vi l comm i t m ent . W e conc l ude thatt he s t a t e a c t i o n p r e s c r i b e d b yt h e S VPA i s g e n u i n e l yc i v i l i n n a tu r e , Aru a n n o ’ s c l a i ms re g a rd in g th e a c t’s c o n stitu tio n a litya re u n a v a ili n g , an d th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in d ism issi n g them p u rsua n t t o R u le 12 (b)(6 ). 8a hea r i ng w i t hi n t w entyday s of the comm i t m entor der . N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 29( a) . T he

m axi m um l ength of comm i t m entt hatm ayr es ul tbefor e a he ar i ng and the part i ci pat i on of t he o ffen der/ defe nd ant i s therefore tw entyday s. M or eover , i n t he ca s e of a n i nm at e s chedul ed forr el eas e, l i ke A ruanno, the t empora r ycomm i t m enti s acc om pl i s hed bythe s ubm i s s i on of tw o s t at ement s pr epar ed by m e d ica l p ro f

e ss io n a ls, o n e o f

w h o m m u st b e a p sy c h iatris t, ce rtifyi n g th a t h e is a se x u a lly v iolen t pred ator in n ee d o f in v o lun taryco m m itm en t. N . J. S . A . § 3 0 :4-2 7 . 2 8 (c). I ndeed, I n r e C om m i t m entof M . M . , 894 A . 2d 1158 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2006) , ci t ed byt he di s s ent , i s l ar gel yi nappos i t e and i n anyeventacknow l edges thatt he t w enty - days t atut or yper i od i s cons t i tut i onal l yr eas onabl e. V i t ek v. J ones , 445 U . S. 480 (1980 ), i s not appo si t e ei t her. V i t ek m erel yheld that a pr i soner i s ent i t l ed to due process p r o t e c t i o n s b e f

o r e b e i n g t r a n s f

e r r e d t o a p s yc h i a t r i c f

a c i l i t y. A s n o ted in text, w e h av e f o ll o w ed K an sas v . H en d ri ck s, 5 2 1 U . S . 3 4 6 (19 9 7 ), ho l ding t hat the K ansas SV P A do es not vi olat e con st i tuti on al gu arant ees of d ue p rocess , a n d w e h a v e th e re f

o re c o n c lu d e d th a t th e N e w Je rse yS V P A is s im ilarlyc o n stitu tio n a l. T he H endr i cks anal y s i s i s of part i cul ars i gni fi canc e t o t he i ns t antcas e, s i nce N ew 9 Je rse y ’s S V P A “ is v irtu a llyid e n tica l to th e lan g u a g e o f th e K a n sa s S V P A c h a llen g e d in H en d ri ck s . . . . ” In re C o m m itm en t of W . Z . , 8 0 1 A . 2 d 2 0 5 , 2 1 1 (N . J. 2 0 0 2 ); co m p are N . J . S . A . § 3 0 : 4 - 2 7 . 2 4 e t s e q . w i t h K a n . S t a t . A n n . § 5 9 - 2 9 a 0 1 et seq. 9 1 . S V P A : C iv il o r C rim in a l? I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he SV PA s houl d be pr oper l ycat egor i zed c i vi l orcr i m i nal i n natur e, w e ar e gui ded byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s anal y s i s i n K ans as v. H endr i cks , 521 U . S. 346 ( 1997) . I n H endr i cks , t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed var i ous cons t i tut i onal ch all en g es to a statute e n ac ted b ythe S tat e o f K an sas w h ich p rov ided fo r th e inv o lun tary confi nementof per s ons cl as s i fi ed as “s exual l yvi ol entpr edat or s . ” K an. St at . A nn. § 59- 2 9 a0 1 et seq . (20 0 9 ). 9 T he H endr i cks C our tbegan i t s anal y s i s of the K ans as s t atut e ati s s ue ( her ei naft er10

“K -SV P A ”) w i t h an exam i nati on of “w hetherthe legi sl ature m eant the st atute t o est abli sh ‘c iv il’ p ro c e e d in g s.” 5 2 1 U .S . at 3 6 1 . T h e C o u rt o b se rv e d th e K -S V P A ’s p lac e m e n t in t h e Ka n s a s p r o b a t e c o d e r a t h e rt h a n th e c r i mi n a l c o d e , a n d th e Ka n s a s l e g i s l a tu r e ’ s o wn ref ere n ce to the legislat ion as c rea ti n g a “ civil com m itm en t pro ce d u re.” Id. T h e C o u rt s ugges t ed thatt he s t atut e s erved nei t herof the tw o pr i m aryobj ect i ves of cr i m i nal puni s hm ent– notr etr i but i on beca us e the s t atut e di d not“af fi x cul pabi l i t yforpr i or cr i m i nal conduct ” orr equi r e a f i ndi ng of s ci ent er– and notdet err ence beca us e by defi ni t i on, comm i t t ees s uffe r ed fr om “ment al abnorm al i t y ” w hi ch pr event ed them from c o n tr o llin g th e irb e h a v io r. I d . a t 3 6 2 . N e x t, th e C o u rt re

jec ted H e n d ric k s’ c o n ten tio n s th a t th e p o ten tiallyin d e f in ite leng th o f h is co m m itm en t and the p rese n ce o f c ertain p roc ed u ral pro tecti o n s m o re t ypi cal l yfound i n cr i m i nal s t atut es r ender ed the pr ocee di ngs es s ent i al l ycr i m i nal . I d. at 3 6 3 -65 . F inally , the C o u rtw as u n p ersu ad ed b yH en d ri ck s’ arg u m en t th at th e statute’s fa il u re to p rov ide trea tm en t fo r co m m itted o ff en d ers rev ea led its cri m inal ch ara cter. T he C our tconcl uded: W her e the St at e has di s avow ed anypuni t i ve i nt ent ; l i m i t ed conf i nementt o a s m al l s egmentof part i cul ar l ydanger ous i ndi vi dual s ; pr ovi ded s t r i ct pr ocedur al s afe guar ds ; di r ect ed thatconfi ned per s ons be s egr egat ed fr om t he gene r al pr i s on popul at i on and af for ded the s ame st atus as ot her s w ho have be en ci vi l l ycomm i t t ed; r ecomm ended tr eatm enti f s uch i s pos s i bl e; and perm i t t ed i m m edi at e r el eas e upon a s how i ng thatthe i ndi vi dual i s no lo n g e r d a n g e ro u s o r m e n tallyim p a ire d , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t ita c ted w ith puni t i ve i nt ent . W e ther efor e hol d t hatthe A ctdoes notes t abl i s h cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs and thati nvol unt aryconfi nementunderthe A cti s notpuni t i ve.T itle 3 0 o f th e N e w J e rs e yS ta tu te s is c a p tio n e d “ In s titu tio n s a n d A g e n c ie s .” 10 11 I d. at368- 69. L i ke the K - SV PA , t he SV PA i s notpartof N ew J er s ey ’ s cr i m i nal code, and the 10 l anguage of the s t atut e des cr i bes i t s pr ocedur e as a ci vi l comm i t m entpr oces s w hi ch r ecogni zes “the nee d forcomm i t m entof thos e s exual l yvi ol entpr edat or s w ho pos e a dangert o ot her s s houl d t heybe r etur ned t o s oci ety . ” N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 25( c) . A l t hough t hi s l abel i s notent i r el ydi s pos i t i ve, i tpl ace s the bur den on A ruanno t o pr ovi de “the c lea re st p ro o f

th a t th e sta tu to rysc h e m e is s o p u n iti v e e ith e r in p u rp o se o r e f f e c t as to negat e the St at e’ s i nt ent i on t o deem i tci vi l . ” H endr i cks , 521 U . S. at361 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. W ar d, 448 U . S. 242, 248- 49 ( 1980) ) ( al t er at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i ons o m itte d ). A ruanno ca nnotm eett hi s bur den. A l t hough fac i l i t i es hous i ng comm i t t ed s ex offe nder s ar e managed byt he D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , the SV PA r equi r es that offe nder s s ubj ectt o ci vi l comm i t m entbe hous ed s epar at el yfr om offe nder s underthe gener al s upervi s i on of the D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 34( a) . T he S V P A a lso re q u ire s th a t th e D e p a rtm e n t o f H u m a n S e rv ice s p ro v id e tre a tm e n t th a t is “appr opr i at el yt ai l or ed t o addr es s t he s peci fi c nee ds of s exual l yvi ol entpr edat or s . ” N .J .S .A . § 3 0 :4 -2 7 .3 4 (b ). F in a lly , li k e th e K -S V P A , the S V P A p ro v id e s f o r re e v a lu a tio n o f

in v o lu n tar ily comm i t t ed per s ons everyy ear . N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 35. C om m i t t ees m ayal s o be12

author i zed bym ember s of the tr eatm ents t aff t o fi l e a pe t i t i on fordi s char ge fr om i nvol unt arycomm i t m ent . N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 36. U nd e rt he fr a mew ork e s t a bl i s he d i n Hend r i c ks , w e ho l d tha tthe N e w J e r s e ySV PA s erves an es s ent i al l yr egul at or yci vi l funct i on. H avi ng thus es t abl i s hed the pr opercont ext i n w hi ch t o eval uat e the cons t i tut i onal i t yof the SV PA , w e now pr ocee d t o anal y ze the m eri t s of A ruanno ’s fou r chal l eng es t o it s procedu res . 2 . E x P a rte T empora r yD et ent i on O r der A rua n n o arg u es th at his ri g h ts w ere v iolated w h en the c o u rten tered a tem p o rary det ent i on or derpendi ng hi s fi nal comm i t m enthear i ng w i t houtfi r s tappoi nt i ng couns el for A rua n n o , an d w ith o u t ho lding a h ea ri n g in w h ich A rua n n o m igh t cha ll en g e the tem p o rary d e te n tio n . T h e S V P A p ro v id e s th a t th e su b jec t o f a tem p o ra ryc o m m itm e n t o rd e r is e n tit led to a h e a rin g w ith in tw e n tyd a y s o f e n tryo f th e o rd e r, an d th a t th e p e rso n su b jec t to comm i t m entm us tbe r epr es ent ed bycouns el atthathear i ng. N . J . S. A . § 30: 4- 27. 29; s ee G r eenf i el d v. N ew J er s eyD ept . of C orr ect i ons , 888 A . 2d 507, 510 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D iv . 2 0 0 6 ). A ru a n n o d o e s n o t cite a n ya u th o rityf o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t h e is e n tit led to an ea r l i erhear i ng, not i ce of t he t empora r ycomm i t m entor der , ort o couns el befor e the 20- d a y p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g . A s t h e N e w J e r s e y S u p e r i o rC o u r th a s r e a s o n e d : “ T h e tw e n tydayper i od forpr e- hear i ng det ent i on i s deemed cons t i tut i onal l yr eas onabl e bec aus e of the ur gencyati t s i ncept i on and i n or dert o perm i tt i m e forpr epar at i ons es s ent i al t o a fa i rand13

m eani ngful hear i ng. T hos e es s ent i al pr epar at i ons i ncl ude t es t i ng and obs ervat i on a d e q u a te to p e rm it a d iag n o sis , n o tice to th e p a tien t, as sig n m e n t o f c o u n se l, op p o rtu n ity t o pr epar e the ca s e and c our ts chedul i ng. ” I n r e C om m i t m entof M . M . , 894 A . 2d 1158, 1 1 6 7 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). Fur t herm or e, w e have pr evi ous l ynot ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s i m pl i ci tr ej ect i on of a cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o a s t atut e w hi ch perm i t t ed emer gencyconfi nementforfi ft een day s w i t houtpr i ornot i ce ora hea r i ng. See R ees e v. N el s on, 598 F. 2d 822, 826- 27 ( 3d C i r. 19 79 ) ( ci t i ng B ri gg s v. A rafeh, 41 1 U . S . 91 1 (197 3)) . A ccordi ng l y , this cl ai m fai l s.

3. U s e of I nform at i on E l i ci t ed fr om A ruanno A ruanno compl ai ns t hathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the St at e us ed i nform at i on el i ci t ed fr om hi m t o s uppor ti t s cas e forA ruanno’ s comm i t m ent , even though A ruanno had notbeen w arned thatt he i nform at i on coul d be us ed aga i ns thi m atthe comm i t m enthear i ng, and he ha d notbeen gi ven an opportuni t yt o cons ul tw i t h orbe r epr es ent ed bycouns el befor e the i nform at i on w as el i ci t ed. T hough A ruanno’ s br i ef doe s notexpr es s l yr efe r ence t he Fi fth A m endment , the s ubs t ance of hi s ar gum enti ndi cat es t hat h e b e l i e v e s t h e S VP A v i o l a t e s h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h ta g a i n s ts e l f - i n c r i mi n a t i o n , a n d we w i l l analy ze his cl ai m on t hat basi s. T h e F if th A m e n d m e n t’s S e lf

-In c rim in a tio n C lau se , b yits o w n ter m s, a p p lies o n ly t o cr i m i nal cas es . See U . S. C ons t . amdt . V . I n A l l en v. I l l i noi s , 478 U . S. 364 ( 1986) , t he S up rem e C ou rtcon si dered t he v eryi ssue A ruanno rai ses her e: w hetherthe ri gh tagainst14

s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on appl i es t o ci vi l comm i t m entpr ocee di ngs . T he C our thel d t hatthe r i ght agai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on onl yappl i es t o pr ot ecti ndi vi dual s s ubj ectt o comm i t m ent p ro c e e d in g s la b e led a s “ c iv il” b ya sta te if “ th e sta tu to rysc h e m e is s o p u n iti v e e ith e r in purpos e oreff

ectas t o negat e the St at e’ s i nt ent i on thatthe pr ocee di ng be ci vi l . . . . ” I d. a t 3 6 9 (q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . W a rd , 4 4 8 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 9 (1 9 8 0 )) (a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). A ccordi ng l y , t his cl ai m fai l s.

4. “C l earand C onvi nci ng” St andar d of Pr oof A ruanno ar gues t hatt he SV PA i s cons t i tut i onal l yfl aw ed bec aus e i tperm i t s the St at e t o i nvol unt ar i l ycomm i ts ex off ender s upon a s how i ng of cl earand convi nci ng e v id e n c e th a t th e o f

f e n d e r i s a “ s e x u a lly v io le n t p re d a to r.” N .J .S .A . § 3 0 :4 -2 7 .3 2 . A ccor di ng t o A ruanno, t he cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o due pr oces s r equi r es thatthe St at e pr ove t he fi t nes s of off

ender s forcomm i t m entbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . A ruanno’ s pos i t i on i s fl at l yi ncons i s t entw i t h Supr eme C our tpr ece dentgoverni ng t r adi t i onal ci vi l comm i t m ents t atut es , w hi ch hol ds thata St at e nee d onl ypr ove the danger ous nes s of a pot ent i al comm i t t ee bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence . See Foucha v. L o u is ia n a , 5 0 4 U .S . 7 1 , 8 0 (1 9 9 2 ); A d d in g to n v . T e x a s , 4 4 1 U .S . 4 1 8 , 4 3 3 (1 9 7 9 ). I ndeed, i n A ddi ngt on t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed and e xpr es s l yr ej ect ed the ar gum ent th a t th e “ b e y o n d th e re a so n a b le d o u b t” s tan d a rd a p p lica b le to c rim in a l ca se s g o v e rn s in ci vil com m i t m ent pr oceed i ng s. Id. at42 7-31. A ccordi ng l y , this cl ai m fai l s. 5. J uryT r i alI ts houl d be not ed thatt he fe der al anal ogue author i zi ng the comm i t m entof 11 “s exual l ydanger ous per s ons ” does notpr ovi de fora j urytr i al . See 18 U . S. C . § 4248; U ni t ed St at es v. V el t m an, 9 F. 3d 718, 721 ( 8th C i r . 1993) ( obs ervi ng thi s fea tur e of the f e d e r a l s t a tu t e ) . We f

ur ther n otethat th eSup remeCourt ha s re c e ntly

a ff ir me d Co ngre ss’ authority to enac t § 4248 under the N ece ssary and Proper

Clause, although the dec ision did not addre ss the claims asser

ted by Arua nno here . See United States v. Comstock, – U.S. – , – S.Ct . – , 2010 WL1946729 (May 17, 2010). 15 A ruanno ar gues t hatt he SV PA vi ol at es the r equi r ement s of cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s i n t hati tfai l s t o r equi r e thata j urytr i al be hel d i n or derforthe St at e t o eff ect c o m m itm e n t. A l t hough A ruanno’ s br i ef i ns i s t s thata s ex off enderm us tbe af

for ded the r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al befor e hi s i nvol unt arycomm i t m ent , m anyof ours i s t erci r cui t s have he l d t o the con t rary . F or exam ple, i n U nit ed S t at es v. C art a, 59 2 F . 3d 34 (1stC i r. 20 10 ), the F i rs t C i r cui tnot ed that“the cl ai m t o a j urytr i al r i ghti n ci vi l comm i t m ent s has been r ej ect ed undernotonl yt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, butal s o t he Si xth and Seventh A m endment s . ” I d. a t 4 3 (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). A c c o rd P o o le v . G o o d n o , 3 3 5 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 0 -1 1 (8 th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sahhar , 917 F. 2d 1197, 1205- 07 ( 9th C i r . 1990) . C f. 11 H ernandez - C arr er a v. C ar l s on, 547 F. 3d 1237, 1256 ( 10th C i r . 2008) ( uphol di ng admi ni s t r at i ve i nt erpr et at i on of s t atut e r egar di ng det ent i on of ce r t ai n al i ens thatdi d not p ro v id e f o r r ig h t to ju ry tria l) . T h e S V P A se rv e s a re g u lato ry— ra th e r th a n p e n a l— p u rp o se , b e c a u se it se e k s to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f

ro m p o ss ib le f

u tu re h a rm ra th e r th a n to p u n ish f o r c rim in a l ac ts comm i t t ed i n t he pas t . W e ther efor e j oi n ours i s t erci r cui t s i n hol di ng thatthe16

C o n stitu tio n d o e s n o t d e m a n d th a t a ju rytrial b e p ro v id e d b e f o re a n in d iv id u a l is i nvol unt ar i l ycomm i t t ed byt he s t at e as a s exual l ydanger ous per s on. III . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in g ra n tin g th e S tate ’s R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s Aru a n n o ’ s c o mp l a i n t . W e wi l l a f f i r m.1

M c K e e , J., c o n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt. I a g re e w ith m yc o llea g u e s’ r e jec tio n o f a ll o f

A ru a n n o ’s c laim s w ith th e sin g le exce pt i on of hi s cl ai m t hat he w as deni ed proc edur al due proc es s beca us e he w as notgi ven n o ti ce p ri o r to his co m m itm en t. A rua n n o all eg es th at “the ex p arte o rd e r o f tem p o rary det ent i on w as obt ai ned w i t h o u tnot i ce t o pl ai nt i ff . . . ata t i m e w hen pl ai nt i ff w as i n the cus t odyof the St at e of N ew J er s ey , w hen no good ca us e orr eas onabl e j us t i fi cat i on exi s t ed that w o u ld m ak e i t u n rea so n ab le o r im p rac ti ca l to pro v ide plaintiff w ith ad v an ce n o tic e .” (J .A . 9 1 ). O u r re v iew o f

th e D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss is p len a ry , an d w e m u st a c c e p t all f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a n d th e in f e re n c e s th a t c a n b e d ra w n f ro m th e m a s tru e . N

am i v. Favuer , 8 2 F . 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). F o r th e rea so n s set fo rth b elow , I be li ev e tha t A rua n n o ’s pr el i m i narycomm i t m entpur s uantt o t he S. V . P. w i t houtpr i ornot i ce i s a v iola t i on of due pr oces s abs entext enuat i ng ci r cumst ance s thatar e notpr es enther e. I. A tt he out s et , I t hi nk i t im p or t antt o not e thatm ycol l eague s pl ace fart oo m uch e m p h a s is o n th e f

a c t th a t A ru a n n o ’s c o m m itm e n t w a s a c iv il p ro c e e d in g . See M aj . O p. at 8 t o 11. I n Vi t e k v . Jones , 445 U . S. 480 ( 1980) , the Supr eme C our thad t o det erm i ne “w hethert he i nvol unt aryt r ans ferof a N ebr as ka s t at e pri s oner t o a ment al hos pi t al i m pl i cat es a l i ber t yi nt er es tt hati s pr ot ect ed by t he D ue P r oces s C l aus e. ” Id . , at488. I n fi ndi ng s uch a p ro tec ted lib e rty in ter e st u n d e r th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se th e C o u rt e x p lain e d : “[ i]f th e sta te2

g ra n ts a p riso n e r a rig h t o r e x p e c tatio n th a t a d v e r s e a c tio n w ill n o t b e tak e n a g a in st h im exce ptupon t he occ ur r ence of s peci fi ed beha vi or , t he det erm i nat ion of w hethers uch behavi orhas occurr ed bec om es cr i t i cal , and the mi ni m um r equi r ement s of pr ocedur al due pr oces s ar e appr opr i at e. ” Id . , at490 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he Supr eme C our tt hus agr eed w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm inat i on thatthe tr ans fer“s houl d notbe i m pos ed w i t houtt he oppor tuni t yfornot i ce a nd an ade quat e hea r i ng. ” Id . A t 4 9 1 . I agr ee w i t h the m aj ori t y ’s con cl usi on t hat A ruanno ’s t ransfer w as ci vil i n nature, j ust as t he tr ans feri n V

i t ek w as . I ti s nevert hel es s cl eart hat , abs ents om e emer gencyj us t i fy i ng a p o st- d ep ri v ati o n h ea ri n g , d u e pro ce ss r eq u ir es no ti ce p ri o r to eve n a tem p o raryinv o lun tary c o m m itm e n t. “T h e n o tice re q u ire m e n t . . . n o m o re th a n re c o g n ize s th a t n o tice is c e n tra l to aff or d t he pr i s oneran oppor tuni t yt o . . . under s t and w hat i s happeni ng t o hi m . ” Id . at496. T he r i s k of err ori n m aki ng comm i t m entdet erm i nat i ons , par t i cul ar l yw her e medi ci ne and p s y c h ia tr ya re in v o lv e d , w a rr a n ts a p p ro p ri a te p ro c e d u ra l s a f e g u a rd s a g a in s t e rr o r. Id . II. T h u s, a b se n t ex ig e n t c irc u m sta n c e s, n o ju stif ica tio n e x ists f

o r d e n y in g A ru a n n o h is due pr oces s r i ghtt o not i ce pr i ort o hi s i nvol unt arycomm i t m entunder t he S. V . P. I n aff i r m i ng t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s di s m i s s al her e, t he maj or i t yr el i es i n par ton R ees e v. N el s on , 598 F. 2d 822 ( 3d C i r . 1979) and the N ew J er s eySuper i orC our t ’ s anal y s i s of N . J. S . A . § 30: 4- 27. 32. H o w e v e r, R eese can r eadi l y be di s t i ngui s hed fr om the ci r cumst ance s her e. R ees e had made s ever al cr edi bl e thr eat s agai ns tt he governm ent . H e eve n w entas t el l i ng author i t i es the3

pr eci s e dat e on w hi ch he w as goi ng t o det onat e a bomb. N evert hel es s , he w as s t i l l aff or ded pr i ornot i ce ( al bei t onl y 1 hour ) , and a he ar i ng befor e comm i t m entw as or der ed. N o s uch em ergency has eve n b een all eged here. T he d i st i ncti on i s even m ore r em arkabl e beca use R ees e had be en r el eas ed to out - pat i enttr eatm entand w as atl ar ge i n the comm uni t yatt he t i m e of hi s comm i t m ent . A ruanno w as s ecur el yconfi ned as an inm at e i n a N ew J er s ey p ri s o n f a c ility. I n I n r e Co mmi tme n to

f M. G. , 751 A . 2d 1101 ( N . J . Super . A pp. D i v. 2000) t he N ew J er s eySuper i orC our tconcl uded thatunl es s exi gent ci r cumst ance s exi s t , pr ocedur al due pr oces s r equi r es t hatper s ons w ho ar e s ubj ectt o comm i t m entpr ocee di ngs r ece i ve not i ce a nd a hea r i ng pr i ort o c o m m itm e n t. T h e re is o n lya v e rylim ited e x c e p tio n th a t: appl i es i n em er

gency s i tuat i ons , i n w h ich the i ndi vi dual i s atl ar ge i n t he co m m u n it yori n cus t odyand i s bel i eved t o be an i m m edi at e d a n g e rt o s e l f, o th e rs, o r p ro p e r ty. T h e tem p o ra l n a tu re o f th e in d iv id u a l’s im m e d iate condi t i on i s t he cr i t i cal el ementi n as s es s i ng due pr oces s cons i der at i ons , [and] i m m edi at e ac t i on w i t houtnot i ce ba s ed on emer gentci r cum sta nces i s the exce pt i on r athert han the rul e. 7 5 1 A . 2 d at 11 0 7 . (E m p h asis in o ri g inal). A ruanno w as i ni t i al l yor der ed t o be t empora r i l ycomm i t t ed under t he provi s i ons of the S V P A . M yco ll ea g u es stress tha t “[t]he S V P A p rov ides that the s u b ject of a tem p o rary comm i t m ent or der i s ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng w i thi n tw entyday s of entr yof the or der , . . . ” See M aj. O p . at 12 . H o w ev er, th e S u p rem e C o u rto f N ew Jerse y h a s h e ld that a statuto ry p ro v is io n re q u ir in g e v e n e a rl ie r n o tic e d id n o t p ro v id e a d e q u a te d u e p ro c e s s . I n In H.E .S . v . J

.C .S ., 8 1 5 A . 2 d 4 0 5 (N . J. 2 0 0 3 ), the N e w J e rs eyS u p rem e C o u rt4

as s es s ed t he val i di t y of a pr ovi s i on of N ew J er s ey ’ s D om es t i c V i ol ence A ctt hatr equi r ed a “fi nal hear i ng . . . ‘ w i t hi n 10 day s of . . . fi l i ng a c o m pl ai nt , ’ ” fol l ow i ng i m pos i t i on of ex par t e r es t r ai nt s , butal l ow ed fora cont i nuance “w her e funda m ent al fai r nes s di ct at es al l ow i ng a defe ndantaddi t i onal t i m e. ” Id . , at 413. I n as s es s i ng t he const i tut i onal i t y of thatpr ovi s i on, t he C our ts t at ed: “I ndeed, t o t he ext entt hat compl i ance w i t h t he t en- day pr ovi s i on pr ecl udes m eani ngful not i ce a nd an oppor tuni tyt o defe nd, t he pr ovi s i on m us t y i el d t o due pr oces s . ” Id . ( C i t i ng In r e C o m m itm e n t o f M.G . ). It is c lea r th a t p o st-d e p riv a tio n h e a rin g s a re a p p ro p ria te a n d c o n stitu tio n a lly perm i s s i bl e i n emer gencys i tuat i ons w her e ther e i s no r eal i s t i c oppor tuni t yt o aff or d pr i or not i ce t o one w hom t he s t at e w ant s t o i nvol unt ar i l y comm i t . T hati s s i m pl ynotthe s i tuat i on her e, and no one i s ar gui ng t hat i t i s . T he maj or i t ycl ai m s thatA ruanno “doe s notci t e any au tho ri tyfo r th e p rop o sit ion that h e is en ti tl ed to an ea rl ier he aring , n o ti ce o f th e tem p o rary comm i t m entor der , or t o couns el befor e t he 20- daypr el i m i naryhear i ng. ” See M aj . O p. at12. H o w e v e r, w e a re re v iew in g a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) d ism iss a l f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . H is c o m p lain t cle a rlyd o e s s tate su c h a c laim . M yc o llea g u e s p re f a c e th e a f

o re m e n tio n e d q u o te w i t h a ci t at i on t o G r eenf i eld v N ew Jer s ey D ept . O

f C or r ect i ons , 888 A . 2d 507 ( N . J . Super C t . A pp. D i v. 2006) . T hat cas e s uppor t s A ruanno’ s cl ai m , notm ycol l eague s ’ r ej ect i on of it. I n G re e n

field , an inm ate ch all en g ed the d en ial o f an o p p o rtu n ity to rev iew the re p o rt th a t h e a n ticip a ted th e sta te A tto rn e yG e n e ra l w o u ld su b m it u p o n th e e x p ira tio n o f h is5

sent ence a s the inm at e beli eved he w ou l d then be d et ai ned pu rs uan tt o the SV P A . H e al so as ked t o m eetw i t h t he comm i t t ee ( t he I R C ) t hatdet erm i ned i f r efe r r al fors ubs equent comm i t m entunder t he S V PA w as appr opr i at e. T he re ques tw as deni ed, and he a ppeal ed the deni al of hi s r eques t by t he D epart m ent of C orr ect i ons . T hus , t he courtw as onl yr evi ew i ng the “ d ef en d an t’ s claim o f a ri g h t t o b e h ea rd w h en the IR C firstev alua tes h im fo r p o ss ib le r efe r r al t o t he A t t or neyG ener al as a ca ndi dat e forci vi l com m it m ent . ” 888 A . 2d at510. ( E m phas i s added) . M or eover , i n aff i r m i ng t he deni al of the i nm at e’ s r eques t , t he courtw as car eful t o not e the l i m i t ed s cope of i t s rul i ng: W e e m p h asize the sco p e o f this a p p ea l is q u it e n arro w . Itfo cu ses o n p lai n ti ff ’s as s er t i on t hatt he deni al of hi s r eques tcons t i tut es a due pr oces s depr i vat i on. T h e re is n o d o u b t th a t d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire s th e o p p o rtu n it y t o b e h e a rd ‘a t a m ea n ing fu l t im e a n d in a m ea n ing fu l m an n er. 8 8 8 A .2 d a t 5 1 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s an d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A ru a n n o is n o t as k in g to m eetw i t h the evaluat i o n c o m m itt e e , to r eview i t s r epo rt , or be presentw hen he is fi rs t eval uat ed forr efe r r al undert he SV PA . H e i s m er el y ask ing f oradvanc e not i ce a nd an oppor tuni t yt o be hea r d befor e he i s comm i t t ed. T hati s a basic co m p o n en tof the fundament al fai r nes s guar ant eed unde rthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. I n r e C o m m i tm e n to

f M. M. , 894 A . 2d 1158 ( N . J . S u per . C t . A pp. D i v. 2006) w hi ch th e m a jo ri ty al s o c ite s , s ee M aj . O p. A t 12, i s not t o t he contr ary . T her e, t he pl ai nt i ff a ppeal ed fr om an or dert hatcont i nued hert empora r y co m m it m entbey ond the tw enty - dayper i od pr ovi ded forundert he s t atut e. She al l eged thatt he governm enthad notest ab li sh ed “exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s and good ca us e j us t i fy i ng t he del ayor a d equat e pr oof thats he6

w as a per s on i n need of i nvol unt arycomm i t m ent . ” Id ., a t 1 1 6 3 . T h e c o u rt th e re , d id sta te th a t: “[ t]h e tw e n ty -d a yp e rio d f o r p re -h e a rin g d e ten tion i s deem ed co nst i tuti on al l yre a so n a b le beca us e of the ur gencyati t s i ncept i on and i n or der t o perm i t t i m e for pr epar at i ons es s ent i al t o a fa i rand meani ngful hear i ng. . . . ” as t he m ajori t ynot es atpage 12 of i t s opi ni on. H ow ever , m ycol l eague s fai l t o not e thatt he courts t ruck do w n the pr el i m i naryor der chal l enged i n M. M. fort he verys ame r eas ons t hat under l i e A ruanno’ s chal l enge t o hi s l ack o f n o tic e . A mo r e c o mpl e t e r e c i t a t i o n o f q u o t a t i o n s f r o m th e d e ci s i on i n M. M. r emoves a ny d o u b t a b o u t th e u n c o n stitu tio n a lityo f p re lim in a ryc o m m itm e n t in th e a b se n c e o f a n a d e q u a te s how i ng o f n eces s i t y . T he courti n M.M. expl ai ned: “[b] eca us e the pat i ent ’ s l i ber t yi s at s t ake, m et i cul ous adher ence t o s t atut ory and const i tut i onal cr i t er i a i s r equi r ed. ” 894 A . 2d at 1167 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he court obs erved thateven though th e law a llo w e d f

o r c o m m itm e n t w ith o u t a p rio r he a rin g b a se d u p o n a sh o w in g o f p ro b a b le caus e, “i tal s o r ecogni zes t hati ti s exce pt i onal t o depr i ve a per s on of l i ber t ypr i ort o a hea r i ng on t he nee d fors uch extr aor di naryr es t r ai nt . . . . O u r c ases r ecogni ze thatt hi s pr e- hear i ng confi nementi s j us t i fi ed onl ybecaus e of the ur gency of the thr eatof s er i ous harm . . . . ” I d. ( I nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I tw as onl yatthatpoi nti n i t s di s cus s i on t hatthe courtm ade the s t a t e m e n t r e l i e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y c i t e s . T h ere af

ter, the cour t caut i oned t hat s uch pre hear i ng depr i vat i on i s j us t i fi ed onl yby“exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s , ” and “ good caus e” a nd th e c o u rt h e ld

t hat“tr i al cour t s m us tt ake a narr ow vi ew of the ci r cumst ance s thatqual i fyas7

“ e x c e p tio n a l’ a n d e s ta b lis h “ g o o d c a u s e .’” . Id . , a t1 1 6 8 . Th e c o u r tr e v e r s e d t h e o r der al l ow i ng t he ext ens i on of the pl ai nt i ff’ s pr el i m i narydet ent i on beca us e the j udge w ho ent er ed t he or der “ d id noteven c ons i derw hethert her e w er e exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s and good caus e w arr ant i ng ext ens i ons of the s t atut oryper i od. ” Id . , at 1169. A s I have a l r eadynot ed, nei t herexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s norgood caus e ar e eve n al l eged he r e. M or e ov e r , i t i s no s mal l i r on y t ha t M . M . a t l e a s t ha d t he be ne fi t of s om e process b e f o re th e c o u rt e x ten d e d th e sta tu to ryd e a d lin e f o r a h e a r in g o n h e r c iv il co m m itm e n t. G iv e n A ru a n n o ’s a lle g a tio n s , w e m u s t a s s u m e th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n yp ro c e s s a t a ll. I t her efor e can not agr ee t hatA ruanno’ s pr el i m i narycomm i t m entcomport s w i t h “‘ m et i cul ous a d h e re n c e to [ th e ] . . . ‘c o n stitu tio n a l cr iteria ’ [ th a t] is req u ire d ” w h e n “ th e p a tien t’s lib e rty i s ats t ake. ” Id . , at1167.