Banda v. New Jersey Department of Mental Health Services , 160 F. App'x 270 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    1-4-2006
    Banda v. NJ Dept Mental
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-4142
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "Banda v. NJ Dept Mental" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1793.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1793
    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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    HPS-12                                               NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 05-4142
    ________________
    JOHN M. BANDA, JR.,
    Appellant
    vs.
    NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; NEW JERSEY
    SPECIAL TREATMENT UNIT ANNEX; ALICIA A. CAPUTO; In her official &
    individual capacities; GREGORY GAMBERKE, In his official & individual capacities;
    MANUEL ISEK, In his official & individual capacities; ELENI MARCANTONIS, in her
    official & individual capacities; MICHAEL R. MCALLISTER, In his official &
    individual capacities; DEON BULLARD, In his official & individual capacities;
    CAROLE LESTER, In his official & individual capacities; BENJAMIN LIBERATORE,
    In his official & Individual capacities; LUIS ZIEGUER, In his official & Individual
    capacities; RONALD "RUSTY & QUO" REEVES, In his official & individual
    capacities; HERBERT KALDANI, In his official & individual capacities.
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-02622)
    District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
    _______________________________________
    Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)
    BEFORE: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    (Filed: January 4, 2006)
    _____________
    OPINION
    _____________
    1
    PER CURIAM.
    John M. Banda, Jr. appeals the order of the United States District Court for
    the District of New Jersey dismissing his civil rights action.
    Banda was civilly committed pursuant to an order of involuntary
    commitment under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act and is currently a
    resident of the Special Treatment Unit Annex (“STU Annex”) at Avenel, New Jersey. He
    filed this Complaint pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     against the New Jersey Department of
    Human Services, the New Jersey Department of Mental Health Services, the STU Annex,
    and eleven individual mental health professionals involved in his treatment and/or
    evaluation. In the Complaint, Banda alleges that his annual review report contained false
    and/or fraudulent allegations “based on altered reports, trump[ed]-up groundless theories
    and opinions from unfactual hearsay, suppressed/dismissed evidence and statements and
    non-sex crime convictions” and that each of the defendants had either participated in or
    sanctioned malpractice, deliberate mis-diagnosis, and professional misconduct. As relief,
    Banda sought unrestricted release from confinement,1 expungement of his court records,
    1
    On July 5, 2005, Banda sent a letter to the United States District Court for
    the District of New Jersey in Trenton, indicating that he wished to continue to pursue his
    Complaint “minus the relief for immediate and/or early release.” Because Banda never
    filed nor sought leave to file an Amended Complaint, and because the District Court
    reached this claim for relief in its Opinion, we consider the issue to be before us at this
    time, and therefore address it herein.
    2
    and $310 million in damages. After granting Banda in forma pauperis status, the District
    Court dismissed his Complaint without prejudice under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii) as
    premature and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
    Banda timely filed a notice of appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . Having granted Banda leave to proceed in forma pauperis
    on appeal, we must now determine whether Banda’s appeal should be dismissed pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B). An appeal may be dismissed as frivolous if it has no
    arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989).
    The District Court concluded that Banda’s section 1983 action essentially
    alleged that he was involuntarily committed, in violation of his civil rights, based on false
    information and reports, non-sex-related convictions, and deliberate mis-diagnoses by
    defendants. The District Court properly held that Banda’s claim for immediate release
    must be sought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
    
    411 U.S. 475
    , 500 (1973); Brock v. Weston, 
    31 F.3d 887
    , 890 (9th Cir. 1994); Souder v.
    McGuire, 
    516 F.2d 820
    , 823 (3d Cir. 1975). With respect to his claim for damages, the
    District Court held that the claim was not cognizable under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     because a
    favorable outcome would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. See
    Wilkinson v. Dotson, ___ U.S. ___, 
    125 S. Ct. 1242
    , 1247-48 (2005); Heck v.
    Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994). We agree. Accordingly, the District Court properly
    3
    dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.2 Banda may bring a section 1983 action if he
    is ultimately successful in invalidating his civil commitment. See Fottler v. United States,
    
    73 F.3d 1064
    , 1065-66 (10th Cir. 1996).
    For the foregoing reasons, Banda’s appeal will be dismissed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) as legally frivolous.
    2
    The District Court dismissed with prejudice Banda’s claims for damages
    against the New Jersey Department of Human Services, the New Jersey Department of
    Mental Health Services, the STU Annex, and each of the state officers and agents acting
    in their official capacities, holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages
    in federal court against states and their agencies, departments, and officers. Because we
    agree that the District Court properly dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for
    failure to state a claim at the present time, we do not reach the issue of Eleventh
    Amendment immunity.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4142

Citation Numbers: 160 F. App'x 270

Judges: Dismissal, Garth, Per Curiam, Possible, Scirica, Under, Weis

Filed Date: 1/4/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024