2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 8-17-2007 

# W iggins v . D onio P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1301

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W i ggin s v . D onio " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 571. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007/571C L D - 325 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 . 07- 1301 LER O Y W I G G I N S, A p p e llan t, v. J U D G E M I CH A EL A . D O N I O , Sup e r i orCour tJ ud ge of A t l a nt i c County ; J EFFR EY S. B L IT Z , P ro se c u to r o f

A tlan tic C o u n ty , in th e ir in d iv id u a l an d o f f icia l ca p a c ity

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . C . C i v. N o. 07- cv- 00104) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M a r i e Bu mb

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) J ul y26, 2007 Be f o r e : REN DELL, SM I TH A ND J OR DA N, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed A ugus t17, 2007)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM L er oyW i ggi ns appea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D istri ct of

N ew Jerse ysu a sp o n te dism issi n g h is i n fo rm a p au p eris co m p lai n t fo r fa il u re to sta te a c laim . B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is a p p e a l lac k s a n a rg u a b le b a sis , w e w ill2

d ism iss i t pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). I . W i ggi ns , a N ew J er s eys t at e i nm at e, s ubm i t t ed a c om pl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 t ogetherw i th s uppor t i ng exhi bi t s . H e named as defe ndant s J udge M i chae l A . D oni o, S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e o f A tlan tic C o u n ty , an d Je f f re yS . B lit z , the A tlan tic C o u n ty P ro s e c u to r. B o th w e re s u e d in th e irin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c a p a c itie s . I n 1 9 9 4 , a n At l a n t i c Co u n tyj u ryf o u n d W i g g i n s g u i l tyo f

v a r i o u s d ru g , f

i r e a r m, and theftoffe ns es . T he A t l ant i c C ountySuper i orC our ts ent ence d W i ggi ns as a “per s i s t entoffe nder , ” and he r ece i ved an a ggr egat e s ent ence of 30 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent w ith 1 5 y e a rs o f

p a ro le in e lig ib ili ty . O n o r a b o u t N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , W ig g in s f iled in the Super i orC our ta col l at er al m ot i on t o corr ectan i l l egal s ent ence underN ew J er s ey C our tR ul e 3: 22. I n hi s s uppor t i ng br i ef, W i ggi ns ar gued thathi s curr ents ent ence vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s underB l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and that the N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt ’s ruli n g in S tat e v . N atale, 87 8 A . 2 d 7 2 4 (N . J. 2 0 0 5 ), d e c id in g th a t B lak e lyw a s a “ n e w ru le o f law ” in a p p lica b le o n c o llate ra l re v iew , w a s itse lf contr aryt o the hol di ng i n B l akel y . ( Pl . ’ s E x. A . ) I n an or derfi l ed on D ece m ber8, 2006, J udge D oni o deni ed “D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on forPostC onvi ct i on R el i ef a nd C orr ect i on of an I l l egal Sent ence . ” ( Pl . ’ s E x. D a2. ) J udge D oni o expl ai ned thi s s um m arydeni al i n an a c c o m p a n y in g lette r o p in io n . T h e lette r o p in io n sta ted th a t th e c u rre n t m o tio n “ m e re ly r ei t er at es the s ame ar gum ent s thaty ou m ade be for e” i n tw o m ot i ons forpos t - convi ct i on3

reli ef that the S u p erior C o u rth ad rejected an d that there fo re “ y o u r co n tention that y o u are e n tit led to re se n ten c in g u n d e r N a tale is w ith o u t m e rit” f o r th e re a so n s a lre a d yp ro v id e d in its p ri o r d e c is io n s . (P l.’ s C o m p l. E x . D a 1 .) I n hi s § 1983 compl ai nt , W i ggi ns al l eged thatJ udge D oni o, i n a conspi r acyw i th B l i t z, vi ol at ed hi s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and s t at e l aw bydeny i ng hi s pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on forcorr ect i on. J udge D o n i o al l egedl ycomm i t t ed per j uryi n the l ett eropi ni on by m i s r epr es ent i ng the gr ounds of W i ggi ns ’ s m ot i on. W i ggins all eg edl y“neve rs oughtt o be re se n ten c e d u n d e r N a tale ,” w h ich h e h a d a ttac k e d a s co n tra ry to B lak e ly ’s h o ld in g . (C o m p l. at7. ) J ud ge D on i o als o all eged l y act ed not as a j ud ge but as an att orneyfor the S t at e beca use h e f ail ed to co n side r w h ethe r to ap p o int co u n sel an d then d ism issed W igg ins’s m o ti o n b ef o re B l i t z had f

i l ed anyr es pons e. A ccor di ng t o W i ggi ns , B l i t z cons pi r ed w i th J udge D o ni o by fai l i ng t o fi l e an a ns w er o r m ot i on t o di s m i s s aft erhi s pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on w as s erved. W ig g in s c laim e d th a t th e tw o d e f e n d a n ts v io late d th e S ix th , E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m endment s , the Supr emacyC l aus e, as w el l as the “pr ocedur es , rul es , cus t om s , or di nance s an d u sag e of the S tat e of N ew Jerse y . ” (C o m p l. at 8 . ) W igg ins r eq u est e d a “ m a n d atory in ju n c tio n to [ e n ]f

o rc e h is R ig h ts u n d e r L a w .” (C o m p l. a t 1 0 .) On J a n u a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tg r a n t e d W i g g i n s ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ri n f o r ma pauper i s s t atus and di s m i s s ed hi s compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and 1915A ( b) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatany r emedyw oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyorm odi fi cat i on of hi s curr ents ent ence and4

th a t h is c la im s th e re f

o re w e re n o t c o g n iz a b le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . W ig g in s tim e ly ap p e a le d . T he C l erk gr ant ed W i ggi ns i n form a paupe r i s s t atus on appea l , and W i ggi ns fi l ed a m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. II. B e c a u se W ig g in s is p ro c e e d in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th is app eal shou l d b e dis m i ssed as fr i vo l ou s pursuant t o § 19 15 (e) (2) (B )( i ). W e w i l l dis m i ss the appe al beca us e i t“l acks an ar guabl e bas i s i n ei therl aw ori n fac t . ” N ei t zke v. W illia m s , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce be caus e the cl ai m s nece s s ar i l ycal l ed i nt o ques t i on the val i di tyand dur at i on of W i ggi ns ’ s curr ent c rim in a l se n ten c e . A p a rtym a yn o t b rin g a § 1 9 8 3 c laim if su c c e ss “ w o u ld n e c e ss a rily i m pl ythe i nval i di ty ” of a convi ct i on ors ent ence thathas notal r eadybeen r ever s ed, e x p u n g e d , d e c la re d in v a lid , o r c a lle d in to q u e s tio n b yis s u a n c e o f a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . H ec k v . H u m p h rey , 5 1 2 U . S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 7 (19 9 4 ). W igg ins c lai m ed that h is r igh ts w ere vi ol at ed w hen J udge D oni o deni ed hi s m ot i on t o corr ecthi s s ent ence underB l akel y . B ut bydi r ect l yatt acki ng a Super i orC our tdeci s i on deny i ng a mot i on forpos t - convi ct i on re lief , W ig g in s e ss e n tiallyc h a llen g e d th e o th e rw ise v a lid se n ten c e th a t h e is c u rre n tly s ervi ng. “[W ] hen a s t at e pr i s oneri s chal l engi ng the ver y f act ordur at i on of hi s phy s i cal i m pr i s onm ent , and the r el i ef he s eeks i s a det erm i nat i on thathe i s ent i t l ed t o im m e d ia te rel ease or a speedier r el ease fr om thati m pr i s onm ent , hi s s ol e fe der al r emedyi s a w r i tofh a b e a s c o rp u s .” P re is e r v . R o d ri g u e z , 4 1 1 U .S . 4 7 5 , 5 0 0 (1 9 7 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

G iv e n th a t th e su c c e ss o f W ig g in s’s § 1 9 8 3 c laim s w o u ld n e c e ss a rilyim p lyth e in v a lid ity o f h is p re s e n t s e n te n c e , th e D is tr ic t C o u rta p p ro p ri a te ly d is m is s e d th e m a s b a rr e d . II I. D ue t o the l ack of

an ar guabl e bas i s forthe appe al , w e w i l l di s m i s s i tpur s uantt o § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). W e w ill li k e w is e d e n yW ig g in s ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. See, e. g. , T abr on v. G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147, 155 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( s t at i ng that“thr es hol d” for a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l w a s w h e th e r c la im h a d a rg u a b le m e ri t) .

5