ARUANNO v. JOHNSON, et al

Filing 82

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/19/19. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH ARUANNO,

Civ. No. 2:14-1954 (WJM)

Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.

STEVEN JOHNSON, et at.,
Defendants.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Joseph Aruanno brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action pro se
alleging that Defendants failed to protect him from an assault by another resident. Plaintiff
moves for summary judgment. Pl.’s Mot., ECF Nos. 73, 74I Plaintiff also requests oral
argument. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Amanno is a civilly committed detainee under New Jersey’s Sexually
Violent Predator Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4-27.24 and is housed at the Special Treatment
Unit (“STU”). Cornpl. 3-4, ECF No. 1; Am. Compl. 1, ECF 4. Aruanno filed a complaint
against Steven Johnson, Superintendent of the STU and Gary Lanigan, Commissioner of
the New Jersey Department of Corrections, alleging that Defendants failed to protect him
from an assault by another resident. Compi. 4-6. Amanno seeks damages and injunctive
relief. Id. 7.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322—23 (1986); Turner
v. Schering-Flough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). A factual dispute is genuine
if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party and is material if it will affect the
outcome of the trial under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In its review, the Court considers all evidence and inferences drawn

ECF Nos. 73 and 74 are copies of the same document.

therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 f.3d
641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007).
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact or
that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although stylized as a motion for
summary judgment and punctuated with a request that the Court grant his summary
judgment motion, Plaintiffs motion does not provide any legal or factual basis to support
his claims and does not comply with court rules. See, e.g., L. Civ. R. 56.1. Rather,
Plaintiffs motion discusses ongoing discovery disputes. Pl.’s Mot. 1-3. In his reply letter,
Aruanno states that Defendants’ refusal to “comply with discovery. is the focus of [his]
motion.” P1.’s Reply 2, ECF No. 78. A motion for summary judgment is an improper
vehicle with which to raise discovery issues.2
.

IV.

.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and
request for oral argument, ECF Nos. 73, 74, are DENIED without prejudice.

Date: November

2019

2

Discovery is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-3 7, to which Plaintiff
is directed.
2