govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_25-cv-09881-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
JOSEPH ARUANNO, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
Case No. 25–cv–09881–ESK 
 
OPINION 
KIEL, U.S.D.J. 
Petitioner Joseph Aruanno is proceeding on an amended petition for writ 
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §  2254 (Amended Petition) challenging his 
1999 state court conviction entered by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 
Division, Cape May County. (ECF No. 4.) Respondents State of New Jersey 
and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey move to dismiss the 
Amended Petition as time-barred (Motion). (ECF No. 13.) Petitioner objects 
to the Motion. (ECF No. 23.)1 
Petitioner has an extensive litigation history in this District, so I will only 
recite the procedural history that is necessary to resolve the Motion. On 
January 8, 1997, a Cape May County grand jury issued Indictment No. 97–01–
00016–I, charging petitioner with second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 
2C:14–2(b); and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 
2C:24–4(a). (ECF No. 13 –2.) Petitioner was convicted of the sexual assault 
charge and acquitted of the endangering charge. (ECF No. 13 –4 pp. 70, 71.) 
On February 5, 1999, t he trial court sentenced petitioner to 10 years 
 
1 Petitioner also submitted a “motion” objecting to the extension granted to 
respondents (Extension Motion). (ECF No. 26.) That motion will be dismissed as I 
lack jurisdiction over the Amended Petition. PageID: <pageID>
 2 
imprisonment with five years of parole ineligibility. (ECF No. 13–6 p. 2.) He 
also received community supervision for life under Megan ’s Law, N.J.S.A. 
2C:43–6.4. (Id.) 
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division (Appellate Division) 
affirmed petitioner’s conviction and sentence on October 9, 2001 . State v. 
Aruanno, No. A–4188–98T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 9, 2001); (ECF No. 
13–8). The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on February 14, 
2002. (ECF No. 13–9.) 
Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in this District on May 20, 2002. 
Aruanno v. Sherrer , No. 02 –cv–02446 (D.N.J. filed May 20, 2002) (First 
Petition).2 District Judge Jerome B. Simandle advised petitioner of his rights 
pursuant to Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir.2000) on July 22, 2002 and 
September 18, 2002 . (First Petition, ECF Nos. 3, 9.) The First Petition 
contained exhausted and unexhausted claims, and Judge Simandle denied the 
First Petition on its merits o n December 27, 2005. (Id., ECF No. 38.) 
Petitioner filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 
Circuit. (Id., ECF No. 40.) The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal on May 
12, 2008. Aruanno v. Sherrer, 277 F. App’x 155 (3d Cir. 2008). 
Petitioner continued litigating his convictions and subsequent civil 
commitment, filing a second habeas petition on September 16, 2013. Aruanno 
v. New Jersey, No. 13–cv–05704 (D.N.J. filed Sept. 16, 2013) (Second Petition). 
District Judge William J. Martini dismissed the Second Petition as an 
unauthorized second or successive habeas petition on October 8, 2013. (Second 
Petition, ECF No. 3.) Petitioner appealed . (Id., ECF No. 5 .) The Third 
Circuit agreed the Second Petition was not authorized and declined to grant 
petitioner permission to refile as his “new claims [did] not meet the 
 
2 I take judicial notice of the prior proceedings. PageID: <pageID>
 3 
requirements of” 28 U.S.C. §   2244.” Aruanno v. New Jersey, No. 13–4256 (3d 
Cir. Feb. 27, 2014). 
In the current proceedings, r espondents seek to dismiss the Amended 
Petition as time -barred, but I must dismiss it as an unauthorized second or 
successive § 2254 petition. “Before a second or successive application 
permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move 
in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to 
consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. §   2244(b)(3)(A). Rule 9 of the Rules 
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, entitled “Second or Successive Petitions,” 
similarly provides: “Before presenting a second or successive petition, the 
petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals 
authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. 
§  2244(b)(3) and (4).” 28 U.S.C. §   2254 Rule 9. Absent this authorization, 
district courts lack jurisdiction over any second or successive §   2254 petition. 
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (“[B]ecause the 2002 petition is a 
‘second or successive’ petition that Burton did not seek or obtain authorization 
to file in the District Court, the District Court never had jurisdiction to consider 
it in the first place.”) 
The Amended Petition raises six claims. The first claim challenges 
petitioner’s most recent state post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings wherein 
the PCR court refused to hold evidentiary hearings. (ECF No. 7 p. 2.) Even if 
I had jurisdiction to consider this argument, challenges to state collateral 
review proceedings are not cognizable in federal habeas. Hassine v. 
Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[T]the federal role in reviewing 
an application for habeas corpus is limited to evaluating what occurred in the 
state or federal proceedings that actually led to the petitioner’s conviction; what 
occurred in the petitioner’s collateral proceeding does not enter into the habeas 
calculation.” (emphasis in original).) PageID: <pageID>
 4 
Claims two through five are challenges to petitioner’s criminal trial. He 
argues the trial court did not permit him to file pretrial motions and that the 
jury had stated its intent to find petitioner guilty before trial , (ECF No. 4 p. 3); 
the victim told the trial court and jury that petitioner did not assault her and 
did not identify him as her assailant in court, (id. p. 4); the trial court did not 
permit petitioner to play his recorded statement during trial, (id. p. 5); and that 
any delays in his proceedings were attributable to ineffective assistance of 
counsel, ( id. p. 6). Finally, he states that he is entitled to an appointed 
guardian ad litem. (Id. p. 7.)3 
Accordingly, the Amended Petition challenges the same state court 
conviction that was the subject of the First and Second Petitions, and there is 
no indication that petitioner has received permission from the Third Circuit to 
file a second or successive petition. Therefore, I lack jurisdiction over the 
Amended Petition. 
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction, “the court 
shall, if it is in the interests of justice, transfer such action ... to any other such 
court in which the action ... could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 
28 U.S.C. § 1631. I find that it is not in the interests of justice to transfer the 
Amended Petition to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit previously declined 
to permit petitioner to file a second or successive petition after concluding that 
he did not satisfy the requirements of § 2244. Aruanno v. New Jersey, No. 13–
4256 (3d Cir. Feb. 27, 2014). I conclude the same rationale applies and will 
decline to transfer the Amended Petition. 
Accordingly, the Amended Petition and Motion will be dismissed for lack 
of jurisdiction. I will not issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable 
jurists would agree that dismissal of the Amended Petition as second or 
 
3 I previously denied petitioner’s request for a guardian ad litem and will not 
revisit the request here. (ECF No. 6.) PageID: <pageID>
 5 
successive is correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 
(2000) (“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds 
without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of 
appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, … jurists of 
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 
procedural ruling.”) 
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. 
 
 /s/ Edward S. Kiel 
EDWARD S. KIEL 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Dated: June 10, 2026 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight