2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-3-2011

John Brandt v. Elizabeth Burns

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-2234

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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

"John Brandt v. Elizabeth Burns" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 716.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/716
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2234

___________

JOHN BRANDT,

Appellant

v.

ELIZABETH BURNS; HEIDI CAMERLENGO; LOUIS MARTELLI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00862)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 3, 2011) 

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Brandt, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order 

granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment in his action alleging due process 

violations and claims under New Jersey state law. For the reasons that follow, we will 

affirm.
2

I.

In 2003, the New Jersey Superior Court found Brandt not guilty by reason 

of insanity with respect to charges of criminal mischief and other offenses. As a result, 

Brandt was involuntarily committed pursuant to State v. Krol, 344 A.2d 289 (N.J. 1975), 

and N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:4-8.1

At the time of his transfer to Ancora, Brandt was subject to an unrelated, 

outstanding warrant for his arrest in Lakewood Township, Ocean County, New Jersey, 

for unpaid traffic fines. Brandt told his treatment team that he wished to be transferred to 

jail on detainer status — ostensibly to satisfy those unpaid fines — and threatened to 

escape from Ancora if he did not get his way.

 After spending time at Ann Klein Forensic Center and 

Greystone Psychiatric Hospital, Brandt was transferred to Ancora Psychiatric Hospital 

(“Ancora”) in Hammonton, Atlantic County, New Jersey, in September 2005. His 

treatment team at Ancora included Dr. Elizabeth Burns, Dr. Heidi Camerlengo, and Louis 

Martelli — Brandt’s psychiatrist, psychologist, and social worker, respectively.

2

 1 Under New Jersey law, “[a]n acquittal by reason of insanity terminates the criminal 

proceedings against an accused, unless the accused remains mentally ill and in need of 

involuntary commitment,” in which case the individual can be involuntary committed. In 

re Commitment of W.K., 731 A.2d 482, 483 (N.J. 1999). After a defendant is committed, 

“periodic review hearings (Krol hearings) are held in a criminal proceeding on notice to 

the prosecutor to determine if continued involuntary commitment is warranted.” Id.

2 Brandt had previously escaped from Greystone Psychiatric Hospital on two separate 

occasions. 

 The treatment team ultimately agreed to 

this transfer. To ensure that Brandt would remain detained after the outstanding warrant 

was resolved, the treatment team obtained an order from Brandt’s Krol judge. That 
3

order, dated November 9, 2005, stated that Brandt was subject to a detainer, and directed 

“any law enforcement officer” to “immediately arrest this Defendant and produce the 

Defendant before the Court or hold in custody until the next regular Court session.” 

On November 18, 2005, Brandt was transferred from Ancora to the 

Lakewood Township police station. A 30-day supply of medication and a detailed 

discharge report prepared by Dr. Burns were sent with him.

3

Upon his release, Brandt took a bus to his home. Three days later, he and 

his friends spent time in Pemberton, New Jersey. When all of his friends had left, Brandt 

approached two strangers and offered them money to give him a ride home. The two 

individuals agreed, but instead of driving him home, they drove to a different location. 

During this drive, Brandt noticed that one of the individuals was carrying a gun. 

Thinking that this individual was going to shoot or rob him, Brandt grabbed the gun. A 

shot then went off, with the bullet striking Brandt’s right knee. Brandt then exited the car 

and threw his money to the ground. The individual with the gun picked up the money 

and left. Brandt, meanwhile, was treated at a hospital for his injured knee and was later 

returned to Ancora.

 Once at the police station, 

Brandt paid the outstanding traffic fines. The police then ran a background check to 

determine whether there were any remaining warrants outstanding. Finding none — it 

appears that the Krol judge’s order had not been properly distributed — the police 

released Brandt.

 3 The discharge report noted, inter alia, that Brandt was “still under KROL status.”
4

In February 2007, Brandt filed a pro se complaint in the District Court 

against Dr. Burns, Dr. Camerlengo, and Martelli. Brandt subsequently amended the 

complaint, and, in July 2009, filed a second amended complaint through counsel. The 

second amended complaint alleged that the three defendants had violated his due process 

rights, as well as his rights under New Jersey state law, by improperly discharging him 

and failing to provide for his continued care and treatment. Brandt claimed that, as a 

result of the defendants’ conduct, he had been mugged and shot.

In the months that followed, Dr. Burns moved to dismiss a subset of the 

claims against her, all three defendants collectively moved for summary judgment, and 

Brandt cross-moved for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2010, the District 

Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denying 

Brandt’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and denying Dr. Burns’ motion to 

dismiss as moot. In doing so, the court concluded that all of Brandt’s claims failed 

because a superseding cause broke the causal link between the defendants’ alleged 

conduct and the harm he suffered: 

[E]ven assuming that Dr. Burns breached her duty of care as a 

clinical psychiatrist by discharging plaintiff into the hands of 

the Lakewood Township police, and all defendants deprived 

plaintiff of his substantive right to medical care and 

protection, and did not follow the proper procedures in 

discharging plaintiff, defendants cannot be liable for 

plaintiff’s injuries because the harm plaintiff encountered was 

caused by a superseding act.

. . . .
5

. . . Dr. Burns and the other treatment team members believed 

that when plaintiff was discharged from Ancora, appropriate 

measures were in place to ensure that plaintiff would not be 

released into the community. Further, they believed that the 

legal system, over which they had no control, would properly 

effectuate their plan. It is beyond the contemplation of 

mental health professionals, however, that [the Krol judge’s] 

order would not be properly disseminated so that the 

Lakewood Township police department would not be alerted 

to it, and therefore fail to retain plaintiff pursuant to it. 

(Dist. Ct. Op. 10, 14-15.)

Brandt now seeks review of the District Court’s judgment. 

II. 

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We 

review a district court’s grant of summary judgment under a plenary standard, applying 

the same test employed by the District Court.” Smith v. Borough of Dunmore, 633 F.3d 

176, 179 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Summary 

judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a). “A court reviewing a summary judgment motion must evaluate the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that 

party’s favor.” EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 262 (3d Cir. 2010).

As the District Court noted, tort law principles, including the principle of 

proximate causation, govern not only Brandt’s state law claims, but also his constitutional 

claims. See Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir. 2004). Proximate causation 
6

is established where the defendant’s wrongful conduct is a “substantial factor” in 

bringing about harm to the plaintiff. See id. (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS

§ 431 (1965)); see also Verdicchio v. Ricca, 843 A.2d 1042, 1056 (N.J. 2004) (noting 

that the New Jersey courts have adopted the “substantial factor” test). The chain of 

proximate causation is broken, however, by a superseding cause. Lamont v. New Jersey, 

637 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir. 2011). “A superseding cause is an event or conduct 

sufficiently unrelated to or unanticipated by a defendant that warrants termination of 

liability, irrespective of whether the defendant’s negligence was or was not a substantial 

factor in bringing about the harm.” Thabault v. Chait, 541 F.3d 512, 525 (3d Cir. 2008). 

Although the issue of proximate causation is typically determined by the 

factfinder, this issue may be addressed as a matter of law “where the outcome is clear or 

when highly extraordinary events or conduct takes place.” See id. at 523-24; see also

Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. v. Arcadian Corp, 189 F.3d 305, 318 (3d Cir. 1999) (“The 

New Jersey courts have on many occasions held that proximate causation did not exist as 

a matter of law.”). Having reviewed the record in this case, we agree with the District 

Court that it was appropriate to resolve the issue of proximate causation as a matter of 

law. Moreover, for substantially the reasons provided by the District Court, we agree that 

the apparent mishandling of the Krol judge’s order (by an actor or actors outside of the 

Appellees’ control) and the subsequent release of Brandt by the Lakewood Township 

police constituted a superseding cause that broke the causal link between the Appellees’ 

alleged conduct and the harm suffered by Brandt. Accordingly, we will affirm the 
7

District Court’s judgment. Brandt’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on 

appeal is denied as unnecessary, as his IFP status from the District Court proceedings 

carries over to this appeal.4

 4

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”) fee payment provisions, see 28 U.S.C. § 

1915, do not apply here, for Brandt is not a “prisoner” as defined in 

§ 1915(h). See Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001) (concluding 

that litigant who was committed to a psychiatric facility following verdict of not guilty by 

reason of insanity is not a “prisoner” under § 1915(h), and thus “not subject to the 

detailed inmate-account procedures of § 1915”). 

 See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Brandt’s motion for 

appointment of counsel and request for transcripts are denied.