A.M.M. VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL (L-2779-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3593-18
A.M.M.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CINDI COLLINS and
DR. NICOLE PAOLILLO,
Defendants-Respondents.
__________________________
Submitted January 4, 2021 – Decided April 15, 2021
Before Judges Suter and Smith.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-2779-16.
A.M.M., appellant pro se.
Respondents have not filed briefs.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff A.M.M.1 appeals the November 30, 2018 order 2 that denied his
motion to enter a default judgment against defendants, Attorney General, Cindi
Collins and Dr. Nicole Paolillo (the State defendants). We affirm the order.
On April 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Law Division against
the State defendants, alleging his civil commitment under the Sexually Violent
Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38, and transfer to the Special
Treatment Unit (STU), violated N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30(b) and was inconsistent
with In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006).
Plaintiff argued defendant Dr. Nicole Paolillo issued a confidential forensic
report about plaintiff that was utilized at his commitment hearing in 2014. He
asserts Dr. Paolillo was not qualified to issue the report.
Plaintiff served the complaint against the State defendants in April of
2016. A track assignment notice was issued on April 20, 2016, providing a 450-
day period for discovery. The State defendants did not file an answer to the
1
We use initials because our opinion references court records that are
confidential. See R. 1:38-3(b)(11).
2
Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed March 6, 2019. On June 21, 2019, we
granted plaintiff's motion to file his notice of appeal as within time. We also
granted his motion to proceed as indigent.
A-3593-18
2
complaint, although they filed a motion requesting time to answer or to
otherwise plead which was granted. Plaintiff did not request the entry of default.
On August 15, 2016, the State defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice. On October 3, 2016, plaintiff's complaint and any
crossclaims against the State defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The
October 3, 2016 order indicates the motion was opposed. Plaintiff did not appeal
that order.
More than two years later, on October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a
Declaration for Entry of Default against the State defendants seeking entry of a
default judgment because the State defendants had not filed an answer to the
2016 complaint. Plaintiff's motion was denied on November 30, 2018, however,
because plaintiff's complaint had been dismissed on October 3, 2016, with
prejudice.
Plaintiff appeals the November 30, 2018 order.3 On appeal, plaintiff raises
the following arguments:
POINT I
THE DEFENDANTS' VIOLATIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
MANDATES IN THE CASE A.H.B., COURT PER
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b. THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT
3
We granted plaintiff's motion to file his notice of appeal as within time.
A-3593-18
3
RESPOND TO THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND SUMMONS WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED
POINT II
DEFENDANT PAOLILLO WAS PROVIDING
EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY AT THE
PLAINTIFF’S SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR
HEARING AND THE DEFENDANT CINDI
COLLINS MALICIOUSLY PURSUED THE
COMMITMENT HEARING BASED UPON
DEFENDANT PAOLILLO'S UNQUALIFIED
EXPERT TESTIMONIES TO SUPPORT THE NEED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF COMMITMENT WITHOUT
HER BEING A PSYCHIATRIST AND WITHOUT
MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
MANDATES COURT PER N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b.
POINT III
THE DEFENDANTS WERE INFORMED THAT IF
THEY FAIL TO ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFF'S
ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE DEFENDANTS'
VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE COURTS MANDATES IN THE CASE
A.H.B. UNDER N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b WITHIN THE
ALLOWED PERIOD, A JUDGMENT MAY BE
ENTERED AGAINST THEM FOR THE RELIEF
DEMANDED.
POINT IV
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO
RESPONDED [sic] TO THE PLAINTIFF'S
ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE DEFENDANTS'
VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE COURTS MANDATES AND IN THE CASE
A-3593-18
4
OF A.H.B. 386 N.J. SUPER. 16 (2006), QUOTED
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30b, WITHIN THE INITIAL 35
DAYS, WITHIN THE INITIAL 60 DAYS, WITHIN
THE INITIAL 90 DAYS, AND/OR WITHIN THE
INITIAL 450 DAYS OF DISCOVERY ASSIGNED
BY THE COURT.
Plaintiff argues the State defendants failed to respond to his complaint
within the time allowed, and they were advised that if they did not respond, a
judgment may be entered against them. Plaintiff requests a judgment of $500
per day for each day he has been in the STU, and an additional five million
dollars in compensation. He argues Dr. Paolillo was not qualified to diagnose
him with various mental disorders or to give an opinion about whether he is a
sexually violent predator because she is not a psychiatrist.
Plaintiff's complaint filed against the State defendants in 2016 raised
precisely the same arguments plaintiff raises in this appeal. His complaint was
dismissed on October 3, 2016, with prejudice. The October 3, 2016 order
provided that the motion was opposed. Plaintiff had forty-five days from
October 3, 2016, to appeal the dismissal order. See R. 2:4-1(a). "An appeal
from a final judgment must be filed with the Appellate Division within forty -
five days of its entry . . . ." Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 540 (2011).
Plaintiff did not appeal the order of dismissal. He is well out of time to do so.
A-3593-18
5
On October 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enter a default
judgment against the State defendants in the litigation that was dismissed with
prejudice two years earlier. The trial court denied the motion. The record
supports entry of that order. There no longer was any complaint against which
to enter a default judgment because it was dismissed. Plaintiff never appealed
the earlier dismissal order. He never filed to vacate the order. Plaintiff
complains that the State defendants did not file an answer to the complaint
within the additional time they had requested. However, they filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), which was granted. That procedure
is authorized by the Rules. See R. 4:6-2. Plaintiff cannot file a collateral action
now to challenge an earlier order he did not appeal. See State v. Smith, 43 N.J.
67, 74 (1964) (explaining that a collateral proceeding is not a substitut e for a
direct appeal from a prior order that adjudicated the same claims in a prior
collateral proceeding). Therefore, we affirm the November 30, 2018 order,
denying plaintiff's request to enter a default judgment.
After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable legal principles,
we conclude that plaintiff's further arguments are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3593-18
6