Mark N. Artis, 

Special Treatment Unit-Main 

8 Production Way 

CN 905 

Avenel, NJ 07001 

January 25, 2013 

Honorable William J. Martini, U.S.D.J. 

United States District Court 

District of New Jersey 

Martin Luther King Federal Bldg. 

50 Walnut Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999 

RE: Mark N. Artis, v. McCann, et al. 

Civil Action No.: 11-3613 (WJM) (MF) 

Dear Justice Martini: 

Please accept this letter reply brief in response to 

Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (C), this is in lieu of a more formal pleading. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS1 

On September 28, 2009, the Appellant, a civilly committed 

person pursuant to New Jersey's Sexual Violent Predators Act, 

filed a pro se complaint against multiple State officials 

alleging several constitutional violations of his rights. 

The Defendant's, in the case, are now motioning the Court 

for summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (C). They are 

1 The preliminary Statement and the Statement of fact are combined for the 

convenience of the court as to avoid repetition. 

Case 2:11-cv-03613-WJM-MF Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 324
Letter Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Page 2 of 6 

filing this motion after refusing to disclose discoverable 

materials which the Appellant has repeatedly asked for under the 

assertion that disclosure would violate the security protocols 

implemented to protect the orderly running of the institution. 

However, this is a decision for the Court to make and for the 

Defendants to simply state that it is a security issue and then 

refuse to disclose the material to the Court prevents justice 

from prevailing. Additionally, there is a "good faith" at hand, 

the defendants should have provided the discoverable materials 

to the Court and let the Court decide, if in fact, there was no 

creditable evidence or, if the material would be a security 

risk. This was not done. The Defendants decided to be the Judge 

and Jury in this case. They chose to withhold the discovery, 

they did not address the issues at hand, and now they motion the 

Court for Summary Judgment. 

Furthermore, they did all of this, knowing that the 

Appellant has no legal knowledge or education in the law, and he 

is presenting his case to the Court without any assistance from 

a trained professional. This in of itself, places the Appellant 

at a disadvantage. This is preeminent by the fact that the 

Appellant was denied the access to a law library and legal 

assistance, which interfered with the Appellant's ability to 

file a timely motion to compel the Defendants to produce the 

Case 2:11-cv-03613-WJM-MF Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 325
Letter Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Page 3 of 6 

discovery that would support his case. Therefore, denying the 

Appellant legal access to the Courts. 

The Appellant is asking the Court to take judicial notice 

of the fact that a constitutional violation regardless of the 

size is a violation nonetheless, as the Appellant is held 

accountable for his violations so should these Officials who 

violated his rights. 

COUNTER ARGUMENT 

The Appellant disputes the following facts in question. 

Defendants assert that, "after Appellant hit Defendant McCann, ... " 

(~ 13) there is nothing in defendant's declaration that supports 

this claim of fact that the Appellant hit or assaulted Defendant 

McCann. However, the material facts show evidence to the 

contrary. Investigator Valentin of SID (special investigation 

division) did not make a finding of an assault by Appellant. 

(Maloney Dele., Ex. C, DOC. 17- 18). Also in the record DHS 

concluded "staff reports indicate that the [allegation] has no 

base (sic) in reality." (Ex. D, DOC. 28.) 

The Appellant relies on the Special Custody Report of Nurse 

Elizabeth Ward with the Chart Notes by Edith Feldman, RN. 

(Statement of Material Facts "SOF" ~~16- 18) (Maloney Dele., 

Ex. A, DOC 11 & Ex B, DOC 15) . 2 

2 As of date, the Appellant has not had the opportunity to depose the authors 

of these reports. 

Case 2:11-cv-03613-WJM-MF Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 326
Letter Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Page 4 of 6 

The statement of Nurse Ward, "Appellant was crying" and 

issues about the item of clothing that Appellant was wearing on 

the date of incident brings question to her report and findings. 

(Issues regarding the clothing, was disclosed in Appellant's 

Answer to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories, question 18) 

Defendants argue that Defendants used "minimal force to 

restrain Appellant in handcuffs ... " However, they do not disclose 

what type of force was used, nor do they disclose what they saw 

or heard Appellant doing or saying that would require Defendants 

to use such of force. None of the Defendants mention the use 

force or the need of force to restrain the Appellant. In their 

reports, in fact, all of the Defendants state, "that resident 

was escorted without incident." (Maloney Dele., Ex. A, DOC 05-

10.) 

The Defendants assert that, an inmate's excessive force 

claim is examined under a less protective Eight Amendment 

standard. However, first, it must be made clear to the Court 

that the Appellant is not an inmate, he is a Resident civilly 

committed under the States S.V.P.A. The State Courts had found 

that residents are not inmates and are not to be treated as 

such. Also, civilly committed persons, such as the Appellant, 

have the same rights as any other civilly committed person 

within the States civil commitment scheme. This is a simple 

Case 2:11-cv-03613-WJM-MF Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 327
Letter Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Page 5 of 6 

concept because the Appellant is no longer an inmate he is a 

patient, and as such, the States S.V.P.A. requires that he be 

detained for treatment of a therapeutic nature and not for 

punishment and deterrence purposes. The State S.V.P.A. is not a 

punitive Act. 

The Appellant questions, was the force applied in a good 

faith effort to maintain and restore discipline? Appellant 

asserts No, for several reasons; 

Appellant was several feet from Defendant McCann when the 

DOC entered the area to restrain the Appellant. 

Defendant called a code for assistance and the Appellant 

automatically got down on his knees, placed his forehead on the 

wall, put his hands behind his head and interlocked his fingers. 

There was no need for any type of force from the Doc staff that 

was facilitated by the Appellant's behavior or speech. 

Appellant immediately stated when the responding officers 

entered the area "I didn't do it on purpose and that it was an 

accident." 

The Defendants could have easily just walked up to the 

Appellant and placed the cuffs on him yet they did not do that. 

Conclusion: 

For the reasons stated above, the Appellant respectfully 

request that the District Court review my answers to the Court 

Case 2:11-cv-03613-WJM-MF Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 328
Letter Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Page 6 of 6 

Report and Recommendations and allow the Appellant complaint to 

proceed and deny the Defendants' motions to dismiss. 

Thank you for the Court's consideration of this Letterbrief. 

C: 

Justin L. Conforti, D.A.G. 

File 

Respectfully submitted; 

~=~, (' u~_d~ Mark N. Artis, Appef.-1.s,.n:t.,:.~.,~ 

Pro Se' 

Case 2:11-cv-03613-WJM-MF Document 30 Filed 02/01/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 329