2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-14-2013

Martin Rogers v. Robert Maretz

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-4520

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Martin Rogers v. Robert Maretz" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 843.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/843
DLD-201 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-4520

___________

MARTIN LUTHER ROGERS,

Appellant

v.

ROBERT MARETZ; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

P. CAPPAZOLI; JACK OSZVART; T.M. POWER

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2:08-cv-03334)

District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 18, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 14, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Martin Luther Rogers, a New Jersey state inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from the 

District Court’s orders granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss, denying his application for 

default judgment, and denying his motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Because
2

the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District 

Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

Rogers’ complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arises from events that occurred on 

July 25, 2007, while he was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison. According to Rogers, he 

was walking out of the inmate dining room when Maretz, a correctional officer, intentionally 

injured him by slamming the exit gate door several times against his back. Rogers further 

alleged that Cappazoli, another officer, failed to protect him from this injury.

Rogers was placed in solitary confinement after being administratively charged with 

tampering with or blocking any locking device. He pled guilty to the charge at a disciplinary 

hearing held by Oszvart and was given credit for time served in solitary confinement; however, 

he alleges that Oszvart violated his due process rights at this hearing by not considering his 

request for video surveillance evidence. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New 

Jersey (hereinafter, “the Appellate Division”) affirmed the adjudication of guilt. See Rogers v. 

N.J. Dep’t of Corr., 2008 WL 4191001 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 12, 2008), certification 

denied, 962 A.2d 529 (Dec. 4, 2008).

The District Court granted Maretz and Cappazoli’s motion to dismiss based upon New 

Jersey’s doctrine of issue preclusion. Subsequently, a Magistrate Judge denied Rogers’ motion 

for leave to file a third amended complaint, and the District Court affirmed this denial. The 

District Court then denied Rogers’ application for default judgment against Oszvart. The 

District Court subsequently granted Oszvart’s motion to dismiss, again based upon principles 

of issue preclusion. This appeal followed.
3

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We exercise plenary review over 

the District Court’s dismissal orders. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 

2000). To survive dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of 

Rogers’ request for default judgment and the denial of his motion for leave to file a third 

amended complaint. See Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000); Riley 

v. Taylor, 62 F.3d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1995).

III.

The District Court properly granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. “When a prior 

case has been adjudicated in a state court, federal courts are required by 28 U.S.C. § 1738 to 

give full faith and credit to the state judgment”; when doing so, a federal court “applies the 

 

1 Rogers’ notice of appeal explicitly states that he wishes to appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s

opinion and order denying his motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Where, as 

here, the parties have not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), an appeal from a magistrate judge’s order must first be made to the district court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). As noted in the 

text, Rogers did appeal the denial to the District Court. Although the District Court’s order is 

not mentioned in the notice of appeal, we “can exercise jurisdiction over [it] if: (1) there is a 

connection between the specified and unspecified orders; (2) the intention to appeal the 

unspecified order is apparent; and (3) the opposing party is not prejudiced and has a full 

opportunity to brief the issues.” Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177, 184 (3d Cir. 

2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). These elements have been met. See Gov’t of V.I. v. 

Mills, 634 F.3d 746, 752 (3d Cir. 2011).
4

same preclusion rules as would the courts of that state.” Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett 

Square, 4 F.3d 186, 189 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Here, as more fully discussed by 

the District Court’s opinions, New Jersey’s principles of issue preclusion controlled. See Del. 

River Port Auth. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 290 F.3d 567, 573 (3d Cir. 2002) (describing 

New Jersey’s five-pronged test for issue preclusion).

In the course of its review of Rogers’ disciplinary charge, the Appellate Division 

explicitly determined that no due process claim had been made out because there was no 

record that Rogers had even requested the videotape for the disciplinary hearing. Rogers, 2008 

WL 4191001, at *2. In any event, Rogers has not demonstrated that his resulting approximate 

week-long stay in solitary confinement amounted to an “atypical and significant hardship . . . 

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 

(1995). Thus, we do not reach his claim that he was denied due process during the disciplinary 

hearing. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653 (3d Cir. 2002). Also, the determination 

that Rogers intentionally wedged his body between the exit gate and the door jamb precludes 

us from agreeing with Rogers that Maretz, Cappazoli, and Oszvart exhibited “deliberate 

indifference to [his] health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); see also

Rogers, 2008 WL 4191001, at *1-2.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter default judgment 

against Oszvart. We consider three factors: “(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied; 

(2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense; and (3) whether defendant’s 

delay is due to culpable conduct.” Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 164. Here, no evidence of bad 

faith or dilatory motive exists. Oszvart was not served with Rogers’ second amended 
5

complaint until March 20, 2012, and his motion for an extension of time to answer or 

otherwise respond was denied as moot in light of Rogers’ motion for leave to file a third 

amended complaint. Furthermore, Oszvart was the only defendant remaining at that time, and, 

as discussed above, his defense of collateral estoppel was not facially unmeritorious. See

Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987).

Finally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rogers’ motion for 

leave to file a third amended complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a district court “should 

freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” “Among the grounds that could justify 

a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice and futility.” 

In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997).

Rogers’ proposed third amended complaint sought to rejoin Maretz and Cappazoli, add 

new defendants connected with the July 25, 2007 incident, and new claims based on events 

that occurred in 2006. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Rogers’ proposed claims regarding 

incidents from 2006 would not withstand a motion to dismiss, as they are barred by New 

Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. See Dique v. N.J. State 

Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010); Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 

289, 292 (3d Cir. 1988); see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2. Furthermore, the principles of 

issue preclusion we applied here would bar any further claims regarding the July 25, 2007 

incident against the proposed defendants. Given all this, the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Rogers leave to amend again. See Cureton v. NCAA, 252 F.3d 267, 273 

(3d Cir. 2001).
6

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will affirm the 

District Court’s judgment. Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); 

see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.