2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-21-2011

Joseph Aruanno v. Jeff Smith

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2801

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

"Joseph Aruanno v. Jeff Smith" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 492.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/492
DLD-275 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2801

___________

JOSEPH ARUANNO,

Appellant

v.

OFFICER JEFF SMITH; NURSE MORGAN; 

SGT. FRANKS; DR. MERRILL MAIN; 

DR. VIVIAN SNAIDMAN; DR. GABRIEL; 

MS. CINDY SWEENEY, Administrator; 

MS. JENNIFER VELEZ, DHS Commissioner; 

MR. GEORGE HAYMAN, DOC Commissioner; 

UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL OF NJ;

JOHN/JANE DOES #1-10

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-01070)

District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 25, 2011

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: September 21, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

Joseph Aruanno appeals an order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

I.

Aruanno, who is civilly confined at the Special Treatment Unit (“STU”) in 

Kearny, New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), 

filed a pro se complaint against various employees of the New Jersey Department of 

Human Services (“DHS”) and the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“DOC”), as 

well as University Medical and Dental of New Jersey and several John and Jane Doe 

Defendants. Aruanno also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

By order entered July 18, 2010, the District Court granted the IFP motion but 

dismissed the complaint under section 1915(e)(2)(B), concluding that Aruanno failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The District Court afforded Aruanno 

the opportunity to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies in the original 

complaint that the District Court noted in its decision. Aruanno filed an amended 

complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs. Concluding that Aruanno had not cured the deficiencies in his 

original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint under section 

1915(e)(2)(B). This appeal followed.
3

II.

We have jurisdiction under 22 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a District Court’s sua 

sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim is plenary, requiring us to draw 

all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 

220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). On review, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 

10.6.

An inmate making an Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of the denial of 

medical treatment must show “(1) that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to [his 

or her] medical needs and (2) that those needs were serious.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 

192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

Aruanno alleges that on one occasion, DOC Defendants Morgan and Smith 

refused to provide him with the precise medication that he requested to treat a throat 

irritation. Aruanno claims that their actions demonstrate a deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical condition. However, the decision not to give Aruanno his preferred 

choice of medication is not an adequate basis for establishing an Eighth Amendment 

violation. See Monmouth County Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326,

346 (3d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the claims against Defendants Morgan and Smith were 

properly dismissed.

Aruanno also alleges that DOC Defendant Cindy Sweeney violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights by disregarding the health risk posed by his exposure to second-hand 
4

smoke at the STU. As the District Court noted, this precise allegation against Defendant 

Sweeney is the subject of a second amended complaint in Aruanno v. Green, No. 09-

1542 (D.N.J. filed Apr. 2, 2009), which remains pending in the District Court. Thus, 

because the claim is duplicative of a claim raised in another pending action, the District 

Court was correct to dismiss it. See Complaint of Bankers Trust Co. v. Chatterjee, 636 

F.2d 37, 40 (3d Cir. 1980).1

The District Court also correctly dismissed Dr. Vivian Snaidman from the action. 

Aruanno claims that Defendant Snaidman violated his constitutional rights by testifying 

falsely at his civil commitment hearing. As the District Court explained, Defendant 

Snaidman is immune from liability under section 1983 since, as a witness who provided 

testimony at Aruanno’s civil commitment hearing, she is cloaked with absolute immunity 

from liability. See McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083, 1085 (3d Cir. 1992).

With regard to the remaining named defendants, Aruanno failed to state a claim 

for relief against them because he does not allege that they were personally involved in 

any of the harm that he allegedly suffered. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Thus, they were 

properly dismissed from the action.

 

1

Likewise, Aruanno’s claim that his civil rights were violated when he was 

assaulted in his cell in September 2009 duplicates a claim raised in a separate complaint 

that he filed in the District Court. See Aruanno v. Caldwell, No. 09-5652 (D.N.J. filed 

Nov. 5, 2009). That case remains pending. Moreover, Aruanno does not allege that any 

of the defendants named in the instant complaint were personally involved in that 

incident. Thus, he fails to state a claim for relief against them. See Rode v. 

Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding liability under § 1983 may not 

be based on a theory of respondeat superior).
5

As this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the judgment of 

the District Court. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.