NEWARK, NJ — A federal judge has given Joseph Aruanno, a civilly committed New Jersey man, 60 days to submit a more detailed habeas corpus petition or face dismissal, ruling that his current filing is legally insufficient and lacks the clarity required under federal law.
It was the latest in a long line of cases filed by the plaintiff against the government.
U.S. District Judge Edward S. Kiel issued the ruling on August 12, granting Aruanno’s request to proceed in forma pauperis but finding his amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 failed to meet the specific pleading requirements of Habeas Rule 2. Aruanno, who is frequently involved in federal litigation, claims wrongful conviction and ineffective assistance of counsel—but provided only vague references and unsupported allegations in his initial filings.
The court emphasized that Aruanno’s submission did not clearly outline the legal grounds for relief or support them with factual detail. His petition referenced claims that the victim failed to identify him, that the jury prejudged him before trial, and that the trial court failed to hold certain hearings—yet did not elaborate or provide factual support. His ineffective counsel claim similarly lacked any explanation of alleged attorney errors or resulting prejudice.
Federal habeas rules require that petitioners clearly state each ground for relief and the supporting facts. “It is not incumbent on the Court to search through petitioner’s various filings in order to determine what arguments he wishes the Court to review,” the judge wrote, referencing other district cases with similar deficiencies.
Judge Kiel gave Aruanno 60 days to submit an addendum to his amended petition that specifies each claim for relief and includes supporting factual allegations. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case.
Aruanno also requested appointment of a guardian ad litem, citing his civil commitment status. The court denied that request, finding that his mental condition—while meeting criteria for commitment under New Jersey law—does not meet the legal threshold for incompetency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). No court, the judge noted, has previously found Aruanno legally incompetent, and his own self-assessment does not qualify as “verifiable evidence.”
Aruanno remains committed under New Jersey’s Sexually Violent Predator Act but continues to file pro se lawsuits in both state and federal courts.
His current petition is among numerous filings brought over the years, most of which have been dismissed on procedural or substantive grounds.