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 Thir d C ir c uit 3-8-2007 

# Aruanno v . C ap e M a y C ty Jai l P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-1395

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 b y 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 mor e 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 " Ar uanno v . C ape M a y C ty J ai l " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1508. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1508NOT 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. 02- 1395

__________ J OS E P H AR UANNO , A ppel l ant

v. CA PE M AY CO UN TY J AI L; CA PE M AY SHERI FF S OFF I CE; C. BRO W N, OFFI CER; CO TA, OFFI CER

__________ 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 ctO F N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 99- cv- 02869) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St ephen M . O r l ofs ky M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e J oel B . R os en

__________ A r gued on J anuary9, 2007 B efore: S L O V ITE R and R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es,

and R U FE , * D i s tr i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed M ar ch 8, 2007)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

__________________ * H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct o f P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2

L o u is K . F ishe r [ ARGUE D] J ones D ay 5 1 L o u i s i a n a A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20001 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n t, Jos eph Aruanno S usann a J. M orr i s [ ARGUE D] Bu d d , La rn e r , Gr o s s , Ro s e n b a u m, G r eenbe r g & Sade 1939 R out e 70 East , Sui t e 100 C herryH i l l , N J 08003 C ou nself

or App el l ees, C a p e Ma y C o u n ty J

a il; C ape M ay Sher i f f s O f f i ce; C . B r ow n, O

f f i cer; C ota, O

f f i cer

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. J os eph A ruanno appe al s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s l aw s ui tfi l ed under42 U . S. C . § 1983 forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m pur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m as s ert s E i ghth A m endment vi ol at i ons byN ew J er s eycorr ect i ons offi cer s atthe C ape M ayC ountyJ ai l , i ncl udi ng3

num er ous phy s i cal as s aul t s bythe off i cer s , deni al of pr operm edi cal tr eatm ent , and the pl ace m entof A ruanno i n s m al l cel l s w i th hi ghl ydanger ous and di s eas ed i nm at es , s ever al o f w h o m a tta c k e d A ru a n n o a n d o n e o f w h o m c o m m itte d s u ic id e in th e c e ll th e ys h a re d . A ruanno al s o cl ai m s thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge i n char ge of non- di s pos i t i ve m o ti o n s in h is case ab u sed h is discreti o n in ref u sing to ap p o int co u n sel o n A rua n n o ’s b e h a lf in v iew o f

th e f a c t th a t A ru a n n o su f

f e rs f ro m m e n tal p ro b lem s th a t im p a ir h is a b ility to p ro s e c u te h is c a s e . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th bel ow , w e w i l l r ever s e the di s m i s s al and the deni al of the r eques tforthe appoi nt m entof couns el and r emand t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforfur ther pr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i th t hi s opi ni on. F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY A ruanno w as convi ct ed of one countof s exual as s aul ti n 1998 and w as s ent ence d to ten y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. H e w a s in c a rc e ra ted p rim a rilya t C a p e M a yC o u n tyJa il, b e g in n in g in D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 (a f ter h e w a s a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d ) a n d c o n tin u in g u n til M a rc h 1 1 , 1 9 9 9 . In 1 9 9 7 a n d 1 9 9 8 , A ru a n n o w a s in v o lv e d in tw o a lterc a tio n s w ith f e llo w in m a te s , o n e o f

w h ic h le d to h is re c e iv in g th re e s titc h e s . A ruanno fi l ed a l aw s ui ti n t he Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , L aw D i vi s i on, Speci al C i vi l Par t , C ape M ayC ounty , agai ns tdefe ndant s C ape M ayC ountyJ ai l , C ape M a yC o u n tyS h e rif

f ’s D e p a rtm e n t, an d th e C o u n tyo f C a p e M a y , alle g in g th a t h e h a d to ld th e jail sta f

f h e w a s b e in g th re a ten e d a n d th a t th e ir w ill f u l d isre g a rd o f

h is s a f e typ u t h im4

i n gr ave da nger . H e al l eged thatthe s t aff’ s negl i gence and ca r el es s nes s l ed t o phy s i cal and ment al i nj ur i es on hi s part . T he def endant s ans w er ed the compl ai ntand fi l ed a m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent, w hich w as grant ed in January19 99 based o n d efen dan t s’ a b s o lu te im m u n ity. I n J une 1999, A ruanno fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y . H e b ro u g h t s u it u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , a lle g in g , in tera lia , t hat c o rre c tio n s o f

f ice rs h a d v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b ya ss a u lti n g h im a n d k n o w in g ly pl aci ng hi m w i th danger ous , m ent al l yuns t abl e i nm at es . H e al s o al l eged thathe w as deni ed pr operm edi cal tr eatm entw hen he a rr i ved atpr i s on w i th fr actur ed r i bs and w as for ced t o s l eep on the fl oori n t hatcondi t i on. A l s o, “[t ] he ave r age w ai tt o s ee the doct or w as one w eek a nd the ans w ert o everythi ng w as an as pi r i n. ” A pp. 37. T he named defe ndant s i n t he s ui tw er e C ape M ayC ountyJ ai l , C ape M ayC ountySher i ff’ s O ffi ce, O ffi cerC . B r ow n, and O ffi cerC ot a. A ft erhe fi l ed hi s s ui ti n t he D i s tr i ctC our t , A ruanno fi l ed s ever al m ot i ons for a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. T h e se m o tio n s c a m e b e f o re a M a g istra te J u d g e a ss ig n e d to m anage al l non- di s pos i t i ve mat t er s and mat t er s r el at i ng t o di s covery . T he bas es for A ruanno’ s m ot i ons w er e thathe had notbeen a bl e t o obt ai n an att orney , thathe had no litig a tio n e x p e ri e n c e , a n d th a t h e s u f f e re d f ro m s e v e re p s y c h o lo g ic a l p ro b le m s . A ruanno s ubm i t t ed medi cal r eport s fr om 1997 and 1999, the l att erof w hi ch s et for th the cl i ni cal ps y chol ogi s t ’ s concl us i on thatA ruanno had “ m ul t i pl e ps y chol ogi cal5

p rob lem s, ” A p p . 1 5 0 , an d that itw as “ clea r th at M r. A rua n n o is prese n ti n g w ith sev ere ps y chol ogi cal pathol ogy , r el at ed both t o depr es s i on and par anoi d del us i onal m at er i al . ” A pp. 152. D efe ndant s pr es ent ed exc erpt s fr om A ruanno’ s corr ect i onal fi l e w hi ch di d not i ndi cat e thatA ruanno had be en harm ed dur i ng hi s t i m e atC ape M ayanym or e than r equi r i ng s t i t ches on one occ as i on aft era fi ghtw i th anotheri nm at e. A ruanno w as never p e rm itt e d to se e h is f

ile, a n d th e D e f

e n d a n ts p ro v id e d n o a f

f id a v it t o su p p o rt th e ir a tto rn e y ’s s ta te m e n t th a t th e yd e n ie d th a t A ru a n n o w a s b e a te n b yth e s ta f f. I n a l ett eropi ni on and or derent er ed on A pr i l 25, 2000, the M agi s tr at e J udge deni ed the r eques tforcouns el , concl udi ng thatA ruanno’ s cl ai m s di d notappea rt o have “s ubs t ant i al m er i t ” and thatA ruanno w as capa bl e of managi ng hi s l aw s ui t . T he M a g is tr a te J u d g e m e n tio n e d th e 1 9 9 7 m e d ic a l r e p o rt b u t n o t th e m o re re c e n t 1 9 9 9 re p o rt . A ft eri s s ui ng hi s deci s i on, the M agi s tr at e J udge appe ar ed t o offe rconfl i ct i ng and contr adi ct oryi ns truct i ons t o A ruanno. A ruanno w r ot e t o hi m obj ect i ng t o the or der deny i ng appoi nt ed couns el , i ncl udi ng hi s obj ect i on t o the omi s s i on of m ent i on of the mo r e r e c e n t1 9 9 9 me d i c a l r e p o r t . Th e M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e r e p l i e d th a t“ [ i ] f y o u f e e l th a tmy d e c is io n w a s in e rr o r, yo u m a yf ile a m o tio n f

o r r e a rg u m e n t u n d e r L o c a l C iv il R u le 7 .1 .” A p p . 1 7 1 . A ruanno w r ot e bac k, r eques t i ng thathi s pr i ors ubm i s s i on be tr eat ed as s uch a m ot i on. T hi s r eques tw as docket ed on M ay8, 2000, butthe M agi s tr at e J udge di d not re sp o n d . T h re e m o n th s la ter A ru a n n o w ro te to th e M a g istra te J u d g e a b o u t h is m o tio n , to6

w hi ch the M agi s tr at e J udge r es ponded: “y ou as ked me aboutthe s t atus of a mot i on for r ear gum entand a r eques tfora s t ay . T he courtpr es ent l yhas no m ot i ons pendi ng i n y our cas e. ” A pp. 179. A ruanno w r ot e bac k once a gai n, r emi ndi ng the M agi s tr at e J udge about hi s obj ect i ons t o t he or derdeny i ng appoi nt m entof couns el , and as ki ng “W hats houl d I do now ?” A pp. 180. T he M agi s tr at e J udge di d notr es pond. T he C ountyD efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the s ui tpur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) on D ece m ber20, 1999. I n r es pons e, A ruanno fi l ed a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el w h ic h in c lu d e d a rg u m e n ts w h yh e b e lie v e d th e m o tio n to d is m is s s h o u ld n o t b e g ra n te d . O n D ece m ber18, 2000, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s , w i thout pr ej udi ce a nd w i thoutexpl anat i on. H ow ever , the or ders t at ed thatther e w er e i ndi cat i ons thatA ruanno had be en moved w i thi n the pr i s on s y s t em duri ng the pende ncyof the m ot i on, and thati f he c oul d demonstr at e he ha d notr ece i ved the mot i on t o di s m i s s the m a tte r c o u ld b e re o p e n e d . A ruanno fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen, s t at i ng thathe di d notknow i f he ha d r ece i ved th e m o tio n b e c a u se h e h a d b e e n in “ iso latio n ” f o r m u c h o f

th e tim e : “to b e h o n e st w ith y o u I d o n o t h a v e a c lu e a s to w h a t is g o in g o n . I h a v e b e e n m o v e d to a p sy c h iatric u n it and have r ece nt l ybeen on s ui ci de w at ch. I am on m edi cat i on and s l eep a l l the t i m e. ” A p p . 1 8 2 . O n J anuary10, 2002, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued i t s O pi ni on and O r der , fi ndi ng t hat A ru a n n o h a d in f

a c t re c e iv e d th e m o tio n a n d d ism iss in g A ru a n n o ’s c o m p lain t w ith7

pr ej udi ce ba s ed on R ul e 12( b) ( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. A ruanno fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l on February1, 2002. DI S CU S S I ON A . 12( b) ( 6) D i s m i s s al T h e o rd e r g ra n tin g th e R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s is re v ie w e d d e n o v o . In re A dam s G ol

f , I nc. Secs . Li t ig. , 3 8 1 F .3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ T h is C o u rt re v iew s R u le 12 (b) (6) dis m i ssal s de novo , ac c e p tin g a ll w e ll-p lea d e d a lleg a tio n s a s tru e a n d d ra w in g a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof pl ai nt i ffs . ”) . T he deni al s of the mot i ons for a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l a re re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Tabron v . G r ace , 6 F. 3d 1 4 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). W e c o n clud e tha t th e d ec isi o n s b ythe M ag istrate Ju d g e a n d the D istri ct C o u rt w er e both fl aw ed. W i th r es pectt o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s al , the di s m i s s al l acke d anyr eas oni ng, and the i m m edi at e r efe r ence t o the fa ctthatno r es pons e w as r ece i ved fr om A ruanno i ndi cat es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm ayhave be l i eved thatthe abs ence of a r es pons e t o a 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on m eantthatthe mot i on w as conce ded and th e re f o re s h o u ld b e g ra n te d . O u r p re c e d e n t s ta te s c le a rl yth a t th is is n o t th e c a s e . See Stackhous e v. M

az urki ew i cz , 951 F. 2d 29, 30 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( “The fac ti s thati f a mot i on t o di s m i s s i s gr ant ed s ol el ybeca us e i thas notbeen oppos ed, the ca s e i s s i m pl ynotbei ng di s m i s s ed bec aus e the compl ai nthas fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe g ran ted. R athe r, itis dism issed as a san cti o n fo r fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith the lo ca l cou rt8

ru le .” ). W e ca ut i oned i n Stackhous e that w e w ere n o t “su g g est[ing ] th at th e d istri ct co u rt m ayneverr el yon the l ocal rul e t o tr eata mot i on t o di s m i s s as unoppos ed and s ubj ectt o a d ism iss a l w ith o u t a m e rits a n a ly sis . T h e re m a yb e so m e c a se s w h e re th e f a ilu re o f a p a rty t o oppos e a mot i on w i l l i ndi cat e thatthe mot i on i s i n fac tnotoppos ed, part i cul ar l yi f the p a rtyis re p re se n ted b ya n a tto rn e ya n d in th a t situ a tio n th e ru le m a yb e a p p ro p ria tely in v o k e d . N o r d o w e su g g e st th a t if a p a rtyf a ils to c o m p lyw ith th e ru le a f ter a sp e c if

ic di r ect i on t o compl yfr om the court , the rul e ca nnotbe i nvoked. ” I d. I n thi s cas e, no l ocal rul e w as m ent i oned, A ruanno w as notr epr es ent ed byan att orney , and he w as nots peci fi cal l ydi r ect ed t o compl yw i th a l ocal rul e. W hen A ruanno repl i ed to the D i stri ctC ou rtthat he w as not s ure i f he h ad recei ved the m oti on t o d i sm i ss i n l i ghtof ci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o hi s m edi cal condi t i on, he di d notconce de the mot i on o r in d ica te it w a s u n o p p o se d . G iv e n th is, th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e p ro c e e d e d to conducta mer i t s anal y s i s . I ns t ead, i tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce. T hus , t he D is tr ic t C o u rt a p p e a rs n o t to h a v e e m p lo y e d th e p ro p e r 1 2 (b )( 6 ) i n q u ir y . M or eover , even i f the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derr es ul t ed fr om an exa m i nat i on of the m e ri ts , w e w o u ld h a v e littl e d if f ic u lty f in d in g w e m u s t r e v e rs e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . A ruanno’ s § 1983 s ui tchal l enged the ac t i ons t aken byC ape M aycorr ect i ons offi ci al s and s et s for th a cl ai m underthe Ei ghth A m endmentof “unne ces s aryand w ant on i nfl i ct i on of pai n, ” I ngr aham , v. W

r ight , 430 U . S. 650, 670 ( 1977) , vi a hi s al l egat i ons of exc es s i veD efe ndant s r ai s e the ar gum entthatdi s m i s s al w as appr opr i at e gi ven the ef fec tof 1 A rua n n o ’s st ate-co u rtp roc ee d ing s, w h ich w ere term inated b ysu m m aryjud g m en t bef o re hi s fede r al cl ai m w as fi l ed. A r gui ng underN ew J er s ey ’ s “ent i r e contr over s ydoctr i ne, ” a r el at i ve of re s ju d ica ta , D efe ndant s as s ertthatthe fa ctthatthe s t at e pr ocee di ngs i nvol ved th e sa m e a lleg a tio n s m e a n s th a t th e § 1 9 8 3 c laim is b a rre d a s a 1 2 (b )(6 ) m a tter. T h is is in c o rr e c t. See Rycol i ne Prods . v. C& W U nl i m i t ed , 109 F. 3d 883, 886 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( “W e hel d i n B ethel

v. Jendoc o C ons tr . C or p. , 5 7 0 F .2 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 8 ), th a t if a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ‘ bari s notappar enton the fa ce of the compl ai nt , then i tm aynot aff or d the bas i s fora di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) . ’ T hi s hol di ng app l i es not onl yt o a st atute of l i m i t at i on s defen se, bu tal so t o an yaffirm at i ve d efen se rai sed pu rs uan tt o R ule 8( c), i ncludi ng res j ud i cat a and the E nti re C on trovers y D o c trin e .”). T h u s, th e a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se p u t f

o rw a rd b yD e f

e n d a n ts c a n n o t b e th e b a sis f o r a 1 2 (b )(6 ) d ism iss a l, be c a u se it w a s n o t ev id e n t f ro m th e f a c e o f th e c o m p lain t. N o r is i tatal l cl earthat , even i f thi s doctr i ne appl i ed, i tw oul d be appl i cabl e i n A ruanno’ s cas e, beca us e the D efe ndant s conce de thatD efe ndantO ffi cerC ot a w as nota partyt o the s t at ecourtact i on. R es pondent ’ s B r . 19 n. 2. 9 for ce, i nhum ane i nt egr at i on w i th danger ous pr i s oner s , and the abs ence of pr operm edi cal c a re . T he s t andar d of r evi ew forR ul e 12( b) ( 6) or der s i s a gene r ous one, and the s t andar d i s even mor e for gi vi ng w hen a pr o s e p la in tif f is in v o lv e d . D l uh os v. Str asberg , 321 F. 3d 365 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A ruanno’ s al l egat i ons s t at e a c l ai m forw hi ch r el i ef c an be g ra n ted , “a c c e p tin g a ll w e ll-p lea d e d a lleg a tio n s a s tru e a n d d ra w in g a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s i n favorof pl ai nt i ffs . ” I n r e Adam s G ol

f , I nc. Secs . Li t ig. , 381 F. 3d 267, 273 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 1 B . D eni al of

A ppoi nt ed C ounsel W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a p p o in te d c o u n s e l f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Tabron v . G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “[B]e caus e 28 U . S. C . § 1915( d) gi ves the di s tr i ct10

court s br oad di s cr et i on t o appoi ntcouns el , the court s of appe al s s houl d r ever s e that exer ci s e of di s cr et i on onl yw her e the partys eeki ng appoi nt m enthas s how n thatthe d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n n o t to a p p o in t c o u n s e l w a s c le a rl ya n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . . . .” ). T he M agi s tr at e J udge corr ect l yci t ed Tabron v . G r ace , w h ich s ets fo rth the f ac tors to b e tak e n in to c o n sid e ra tio n in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l is w arran ted. T h ese fa ctors inc lud e w h ethe r th e su ith as “ arg u ab le m erit ;” th e p lai n ti ff ’s abi l i tyt o pr es enthi s cas e; and the pl ai nt i ff’ s “educ at i on, l i t er acy , pr i orw or k exper i ence , and pr i orl i t i gat i on exper i ence . ” Tabron , 6 F. 3d at156. T he “c our tm us tal s o cons i der the di ffi cul tyof the part i cul arl egal i s s ues , ” as s es s “the degr ee t o w hi ch fa ctual i nves t i gat i on w i l l be r equi r ed and the abi l i tyof the i ndi gentpl ai nt i ff t o pur s ue s uch i nves t i gat i on” and “ the ext entt o w hi ch pr i s oner s and other s s uffe r i ng confi nementm ay fac e pr obl ems i n pur s ui ng thei rcl ai m s . ” I d. F in a lly , “w h e re th e c laim s a re lik e lyto r equi r e ext ens i ve di s coveryand compl i ance w i th compl ex di s coveryrul es , appoi nt m ent o f c o u n se l m a yb e w a rra n ted ,” a n d “ w h e n a c a se is lik e lyto tu rn o n c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons , appoi nt m entof couns el m aybe j us t i fi ed. ” I d. T h e M ag istrate Ju d g e m isap p li ed thes e f ac tors to the fa cts b ef

o re h im . In w ei ghi ng eac h of the fa ct or s , the M agi s tr at e J udge err ed bygi vi ng i ns uffi ci ent cons i der at i on t o t he uncontr overt ed medi cal r eport s des cr i bi ng A ruanno’ s condi t i on andT h e re is a q u e stio n a s to w h e th e r th e M a g istra te J u d g e m isa p p lied th e “ a rg u a b le m e rit” 2 f a c to r in so f

a r a s h e d e e m e d th e c laim s to lac k “ su b sta n tial m e rit. ” A p p . 1 5 . E v e n if th is w as m erel ya sl i p o f t he p en, the fa ct or w as m i sappli ed b ecause the cl ai m s do p ossess a rg u a b le m e rit. 11 t o the over al l di ffi cul tyA ruanno fa ced i n br i ngi ng hi s s ui t . T he M agi s tr at e J udge 2 negl ect ed t o m ent i on the mostr ece ntm edi cal r eportdes cr i bi ng A ruanno’ s condi t i on, i ns t ead r efe r r i ng excl us i vel yt o an ea r l i err eportanal y zi ng A ruanno’ s compet encyt o s t and tr i al . T he M agi s tr at e J udge then compounded thaterr orbydr aw i ng err oneous co n clus ion s fro m the c o m p eten cyrep o rt . “[ A rua n n o ] w as f o u n d to b e a w are o f th e n ature a n d c o n se q u e n c e s o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im . It w a s a lso f o u n d th a t [ A ru a n n o ] c o u ld adequa t el ypart i ci pat e i n t he def ens e of hi s cr i m i nal cas e. T hi s di agnos i s confi r m s that the pl ai nt i ff i s capa bl e of de fendi ng hi s pendi ng ci vi l r i ght s cas e. ” A pp. 21. T hat fr ami ng of the Tabron t es tfl at l ydi s t or t ed i t ; a def endant ’ s compet encyt o s t and tr i al does notequat e t o hi s bei ng abl e t o m anage a ci vi l s ui t . M or eover , the M agi s tr at e J udge fa i l ed t o cons i derthatthi s type of s ui t , a § 1983 s ui tagai ns tpr i s on offi ci al s , w oul d i ncl ude cr edi bi l i tyand di s coveryi s s ues and w oul d be appr opr i at e forthe appoi nt m entof couns el u n d e ro u rc a s e l a w. W e h a v e sa id th a t “[ i]f

it ap p e a rs th a t an in d ig e n t p lain tiff w ith a c laim o f

a rg u a b le m e rit is in c a p a b le o f

p re se n tin g h is o r h e r c a se , se rio u s c o n sid e ra tio n sh o u ld b e g iv e n to a p p o in tin g c o u n se l, an d if su c h a p lain tiff ’s c laim is tru lysu b sta n tial, co u n se l sh o u ld or di nar i l ybe appoi nt ed. ” Tabron , 6 F. 3d at156 ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . I n thi s cas e,12

A ruanno’ s cl ai m has ar guabl e mer i tand hi s m edi cal condi t i on r ender ed hi m i ncapa bl e of pr os ecut i ng hi s cas e. T he deni al of the r eques tw as t ai nt ed byan undul yr es tr i ct i ve appl i cat i on of Tabron t o the fact s athan d, and w e con cl ud e t hat the d enial of the request forappoi nt m entof couns el w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. A ccor di ngl yw e w i l l r ever s e the o rd e r a n d re q u ir e th a t c o u n s e l b e a p p o in te d . CO NC L US I ON I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, the O r derof the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed on J anuary10, 2002, deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen a nd di s m i s s i ng the ac t i on w i th pr ej udi ce w i l l be R E V E R S E D . T h e c a se w ill b e R E M A N D E D to th e D istric t C o u rt w ith d ire c tio n to appoi ntcouns el forappel l antand forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th the O pi ni on of th is C o u rt .

__________________