CLD-065 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-3183
___________
IN RE: JOSEPH ARUANNO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 04-cv-03066 and D.N.J. Civ. No. 01-cv-00789)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 24, 2015
Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed December 10, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Joseph Aruanno petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking to have the District
Court rule on his motion to reinstate Bagarozy v. Harris, D.N.J. Civ. No. 04-cv-03066.
Because the District Court has already ruled on the motion, we will dismiss the petition
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
as moot. However, as explained below, we suggest that the District Court consider
certain of Aruanno’s filings as motions to reconsider that ruling.
Aruanno is a civilly-committed detainee under the New Jersey Sexually Violent
Predator Act. His complaint in Bagarozy complains of conditions at the Special
Treatment Unit (“STU”) Annex in Avenel, New Jersey. In 2008, the Bagarozy matter
and another matter, Hasher, et al. v. Corzine, et al., D.N.J. No. 07–cv–01212, were
consolidated with a case that commenced in 2001, Alves, et al. v. Ferguson, et al., D.N.J.
No. 01–cv–00789. The District Court certified a plaintiff class, and the parties reached a
settlement agreement, approved by the District Court. We affirmed the settlement in
March 2014. See C.A. Nos. 13–1071 and 13–1072.
As we recently explained in another mandamus proceeding, in April 2014,
Aruanno filed motions to reinstate or reopen the Hasher and Bagarozy actions. In re
Aruanno, C.A. No. 14-4585, 599 F. App’x 418, 418-19 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam). The
motions were identical except for their case captions. One motion mentioned Hasher in
its caption. That motion was docketed at # 236 in Alves. The District Court promptly
acted on that motion, construing it “as a request to sever certain claims originally filed in
Hasher from the terminated consolidated class action in Alves, and it granted the motion
by severing all non-settled Hasher claims from D.N.J. No. 01–cv–00789 and reinstating
those claims to the active docket in D.N.J. No. 07–cv–01212.” In re Aruanno, 599 F.
App’x at 419.
2
Aruanno’s motion that mentioned Bagarozy in its caption was docketed at #104 in
D.N.J. Civ. No. 04-cv-03066, despite the Clerk’s April 2009 docket entry advising that
there were to be no further filings in that case. However, the docket for Alves reflects
that the motion was transferred to that docket on November 10, 2014, at Dkt. #253. We
explained in the earlier mandamus proceeding that while the four-month delay since the
transfer of the motion to the Alves docket was of some concern, we were confident that
the District Court would rule on Aruanno’s motion in short order. Id. at 419. While there
is no indication on the Bagarozy docket that the motion has been resolved, that is
understandable, given the Clerk’s order that no further filings would be docketed in that
case. And the District Court did rule on Aruanno’s motion—the order is docketed in the
Alves proceeding at Docket #260. The District Court stated that the motion to reopen
docketed at #253 was identical to the motion to reopen Hasher, which had already been
granted. The Court thus denied #253 as moot. Because the District Court has already
ruled on Aruanno’s motion, we must dismiss his motion for a writ of mandamus. See
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
We recommend, however, that the District Court consider Aruanno’s letters
docketed in Alves at #261 and #262 as motions to reconsider the Court’s April 17, 2015
order that denied #253 as moot. Aruanno appears to explain that the motion docketed at
#253 was not seeking to reopen Hasher; rather, he was seeking to reopen unsettled
matters in Bagarozy. We note that in its order the District Court stated that Aruanno’s
3
motion “does not specify which claims, other than those which have been revived in
Hasher, Aruanno wishes to have reopened and reconsidered.” Dist. Ct. Order, Dkt. #260
at 2. It appears that Aruanno has attempted to remedy that situation in an attachment to
his letter dated April 21, 2015 (Dkt. #261). We express no opinion as to the merit of
Aruanno’s motion.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be dismissed.
4