2009 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 2-20-2009 

# Ak um a-Eze: Ak

um a v . S amuel Nat al 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 . 08-1135

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Ak um a -E z e: Ak

um a v . S amuel Nat al " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1843. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1843NOT 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. 08- 1135

___________ AKUMA- E Z E : AKUMA, A ppel l ant v . JU D G E S A M U E L D . N A T A L , J.S .C . et a l.

____________________________________ 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 ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 05765) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February19, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: February20, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A k u m a-E ze : A k u m a, w h o is prese n tl yinv o lun tari lyco m m itted to the A n co ra Psy chi atr i c H os pi t al , 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 i stri ctof N ew Jer seydis m i ssi ng sua spon t e his com plai nt s eeking, am on g o ther things,2

di s m i s s al of a s t at e cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on agai ns thi m and r el eas e fr om pr e- tr i al c o n f in e m e n t at th e p sy c h iatric h o sp ital. A k u m a ’s le n g th yn a rra tiv e c o m p lain t li sts tw o se ts o f e v e n ts le a d in g u p to h is i nvol unt arycomm i t m entt o A ncor a Ps y chi atr i c H os pi t al . Fi r s t , A kum a al l eges that uni dent i fi ed Penns auken Pol i ce O ffi cer s as s aul t ed and a rr es t ed hi m and unl aw ful l ys ei zed hi s caron N ovember2, 2006. U pon hi s r el eas e on bai l , he att empt ed t o gethi s carback b yse rv in g a se lf

-sty led “ n o tice a n d d e m a n d ” o n th e P e n n sa u k e n P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, t o w hi ch theydi d notr es pond. H e then fi l ed a c i vi l act i on i n s t at e courti n 2006, s eeki ng t he re tu rn o f h is p ro p e rty . H e c laim s th a t h is c a r is s til l in p o lice c u sto d ya n d h e w a n ts it back. T h e n e x t se t o f

a lleg a tio n s p e rta in to e v e n ts th a t b e g a n in M a rc h 2 0 0 7 , w ith A kum a’ s arr es ton a w arr antatthe R ut ger s U ni ver s i tyL aw L i br ary . H e w as t aken t o the C a m d e n C o u n tyC o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty(“ C C C F ” ) p e n d in g h is in iti a l ap p e a ra n c e in h is s t at e courtcr i m i nal act i on befor e J udge Samuel N at al . A tthe i ni t i al appea r ance , J udge Na t a l a s s i g n e d Ak u ma a p u b l i c d e f e n d e r , a l l e g e d l ywi th o u tAk u ma ’ s c o n s e n t . Ak u ma cl ai m s that , on A ugus t1, 2007, J udge N at al s enthi m t o the A ncor a Ps y chi atr i c H os pi t al fora compet encyeval uat i on agai ns thi s w i l l . H e as s ert s thatw hen he r efus ed t o t ake m edi cat i ons , the doct or s puthi m on “r efus i ng s t atus ” and ga ve hi m m edi cat i ons by i nj ect i on agai ns thi s w i l l . O n A ugus t24, 2007, D oct orB enj ami n L i ber at or e conduc t ed a co m p eten cyev alua ti o n o f A k u m a. O n S ep tem b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , Ju d g e N atal rev iew ed D r.3

L i ber at or e’ s r eportof A kum a’ s compet encyt o s t and tr i al , concl udi ng, i nt eral i a, that A kum a w as a dange rt o hi m s el f and t o the comm uni ty . U pon the agr eementof the p rose cu ti o n an d p u b li c d ef en d er, Jud g e N atal ord ere d that A k u m a b e re turn ed to A n co ra H os pi t al pendi ng hi s cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. A kum a compl ai ned thatJ udge N at al ’ s act i ons viol at ed h i s due p rocess ri gh t s. A ku m a further cl ai m ed thatthe A nco ra H ospit al do ct ors depr i ved hi m of due pr oces s and s ubj ect ed hi m t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm entby f o r c i b l yme d i c a t i n g h i m. Forr el i ef, A kum a s oughtor der s di r ect i ng hi s r el eas e fr om the ps y chi atr i c hos pi t al and barr i ng A ncor a Ps y chi atr i c H os pi t al and i t s doct or s fr om s ubj ect i ng hi m t o any fur ther“medi cal exper i m ent at i on” aga i ns thi s w i l l . I n addi t i on t o a courtor der compel l i ng the s t at e of N ew J er s eyt o conducta w i des pr ead i nves t i gat i on of al l eged i l l egal act i vi t i es bythe j udi ci al s y s t em t hatt ar get ed mi nor i t i es , A kum a al s o r eques t ed o rde rs direc ti n g the d ism issal of the c ri m inal p rose cu ti o n ag ains t him an d Ju d g e N atal’s r ecus al fr om hi s cr i m i nal cas e. H e w ant ed the D i s tr i ctC our tt o or derthe Penns auken Pol i ce t o r eturn hi s carand payfora tune- up. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt tr e a te d th e p e titio n a s a c o m p la in t f ile d p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 an d d ism issed itsu a sp o n te byo rde r en tered D ec em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce a l l cl ai m s agai ns tJ udge N at al as barr ed bythe doctr i ne of abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni tybeca us e the cl ai m s w er e bas ed on rul i ngs m ade byJ udge N at al in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

h is o f f ic ia l d u tie s a s a J u d g e in th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt o f N e w J e rs e y .W e n o te th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ar ticu late a n yso u rc e f o r its a u th o rityto 1 d ism iss A k u m a ’s c o m p lain t su a sp o n te. A k u m a d id n o t p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915, and thus , the D i s tr i ctC our thad no author i tyunderthat p rov isi o n to rev iew h is co m p lai n t fo r frivo lou sn ess. H o w ev er, be ca u se m an yo f A k u m a’s a lle g a tio n s a re s o in s u b s ta n tia l a s to b e in s u f f ic ie n t to c o n f

e r j u ri s d ic tio n , s e e , e .g ., H agans v. L avi ne, 415 U . S. 528, 538- 41 ( 1974) , and bec aus e the r emai nderof the a l l e g a t i o n s we r e tr a n s f

e r r e d t o o n e o f

Ak u ma ’ s r e l a t e d o n g o i n g Di s tr i c tCo u r ta c t i o n s , we con cl ud e t hat anyerr or on the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s partw as harm l ess. 4 T he courtal s o di s m i s s ed pur s uantt o the doctr i ne of Y oungerv. H arr i s , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) , A kum a’ s r eques tfordi s m i s s al of the pendi ng s t at e cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce A kum a’ s r eques tfori m m edi at e r el eas e fr om p re -tria l co n f

in e m e n t at th e p sy c h iatric h o sp ital a n d h is in v o lu n tar ym e d ica tio n c laim agai ns tthe medi cal s t aff atA ncor a Ps y chi atr i c H os pi t al . T he D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed the C l erk t o r efund A kum a hi s fi l i ng fee and t o fi l e the C om pl ai ntas a s uppl ement al co m p lai n t i n A k u m a-E ze : A k u m a v . B u rns, C iv. N o . 0 7 -05 1 7 1 (D . N . J. ). T h is tim e ly ap p e a l f

o llo w e d . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O urr evi ew of the or derdi s m i s s i ng A kum a’ s act i on i s pl enary . See V i ct aul i c C o. v. T i eman, 499 F. 3d 227, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . “[A ] pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege f act s thatr ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel on the as s um pt i on thatthe al l egat i ons i n the c o m p l a i n ta r e tru e ( e v e n i f d o u b t f u l i n f a c t ) . ” I d . ( c i t i n g B e l l A t l a n t i c C o rp . v . T w o m b l y, 5 5 0 U . S . 5 4 4 , ___ , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5 (20 0 7 ). W e wi l l a f

f i r m. As th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o rr e c t l yd e t e r mi n e d , Ak u ma ’ s c l a i ms 1 a g a i n s tJ u d g e Na t a l a r e b a r r e d b yth e d o c tr i n e o f a b s o l u t e j u d i c i a l i mmu n i ty . S e e S tu mp5

v. Spar km an, 435 U . S. 349, 357, 363 ( 1978) . W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ua s pont e dec i s i on t o abs t ai n fr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on overA kum a’ s r eques tthatthe fe de r a l c ou r tdi s mi s s hi s s t a t e c ou r tc r i mi na l a c t i on . Se e O ’ She a v. Li t t l e t on , 41 4 U. S. 4 8 8 , 4 9 6 (19 7 4 ) (cit ing Y o u n g er v . H arris, 4 0 1 U . S . 3 7 (19 7 1 )). T h e D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t A k u m a ’s p e tit io n f o r im m e d iate re lea se f

ro m c o n f in e m e n t is o n lyc o g n iza b le in h a b e a s c o rp u s, a n d th e n , o n lya f ter h e h a s e x h a u ste d a v a ilab le s tate courtr emedi es . Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U . S. 475, 500 ( 1973) . W e agr ee w i th the D istric t C o u rt th a t A k u m a ’s in v o lu n tar ym e d ica tio n c laim a g a in st A n c o ra P sy c h iatric H os pi t al doct or s dupl i cat es curr ent l ypendi ng cl ai m s he r ai s ed i n A kum a- E ze: A kum a v. B urns , C i v. N o. 07- 05171 ( D . N . J . ) . See W al t on v. E at on C orp. , 563 F. 2d 66, 70- 71 (19 7 7 ). T h at l ea v es A k u m a’s c lai m s ag ains t th e P en n sau k en P o li ce D ep artm en t of fice rs w h o m h e d id n o t n a m e in h is c o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t g ra n t A k u m a lea v e to amend t he C om pl ai ntt o name t he Penns auken Pol i ce D epart m entoranyof i t s offi cer s as defe nd ants . N or di d the D i stri ctC ou rtadd res s A ku m a’s cl ai m s w i th respectt o h i s arres t i n N ovember2006 and the r eturn of hi s car . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed thatt he c a s e b e c l o s e d a d mi n i s tr a t i v e l ya n d o r d e r e d th e r e tu rn o f th e f u l l f i l i n g f e e t o Ak u ma , we concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti nt ended thatthes e cl ai m s be fi l ed as a s uppl ement al compl ai nti n A kum a v B urns , C i v. N o. 07- 05171. T hus , beca us e A kum a w i l l have a n oppor tuni tyt o fi l e a mot i on t o amend t he compl ai nti n A kum a v. B urns , w e hol d thatany6

err or of t he D i stri ctC ou rti n thi s m at t er i s harm l ess. W e have thor oughl yr evi ew ed A kum a’ s cl ai m s on appea l and conc l ude thatthey a re m e ritles s. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.