Joseph Aruanno v. State of New Jersey, et al.

D. New Jersey

Joseph Aruanno v. State of New Jersey, et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided June 3, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-09881·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH ARUANNO, Case No. 25–cv–09881–ESK Petitioner,

v. OPINION AND ORDER STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Respondents.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon petitioner Joseph Aruanno’s motion for default, summary judgment, and the appointment of counsel (Motion). (ECF No. 24.) Petitioner moves for default and summary judgment asserting that respondents did not submit an answer to his habeas corpus petition in the time set by this Court. (Id. p. 2.) He asks that counsel be appointed so the Court “can get a full and fair look at this case … .” (Id.) I granted respondent’s request for an extension of time to answer or file a motion to dismiss on November 9, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) Respondents timely filed their motion to dismiss on November 21, 2025. (ECF No. 13.) Therefore, I will deny petitioner’s request for default or summary judgment based on an alleged failure to respond. I will deny petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel without prejudice. There is no right to counsel in habeas proceedings. See Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that the Court has discretion to appoint counsel for financially eligible petitioners where “the court determines that the interests of justice so require ... .” Petitioner argues counsel should be appointed because his relevant papers have been discarded. (ECF No. 24 p. 5.) The Court is in the process of reviewing the motion to dismiss; no further briefing is necessary at the moment. Petitioner was given additional time to file opposition to the motion to dismiss, which he did on February 5, 2026. (ECF No. 23.) Petitioner may renew his request for counsel in the event the motion to dismiss is denied. IT IS on this 2nd day of June 2026 ORDERED that: 1. The Motion at ECF No. 24 is DENIED. 2. The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Opinion and Order by regular mail.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH ARUANNO, Case No. 25–cv–09881–ESK Petitioner,

v. OPINION AND ORDER STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Respondents.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon petitioner Joseph Aruanno’s motion for default, summary judgment, and the appointment of counsel (Motion). (ECF No. 24.) Petitioner moves for default and summary judgment asserting that respondents did not submit an answer to his habeas corpus petition in the time set by this Court. (Id. p. 2.) He asks that counsel be appointed so the Court “can get a full and fair look at this case … .” (Id.) I granted respondent’s request for an extension of time to answer or file a motion to dismiss on November 9, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) Respondents timely filed their motion to dismiss on November 21, 2025. (ECF No. 13.) Therefore, I will deny petitioner’s request for default or summary judgment based on an alleged failure to respond. I will deny petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel without prejudice. There is no right to counsel in habeas proceedings. See Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that the Court has discretion to appoint counsel for financially eligible petitioners where “the court determines that the interests of justice so require ... .” Petitioner argues counsel should be appointed because his relevant papers have been discarded. (ECF No. 24 p. 5.) The Court is in the process of reviewing the motion to dismiss; no further briefing is necessary at the moment. Petitioner was given additional time to file opposition to the motion to dismiss, which he did on February 5, 2026. (ECF No. 23.) Petitioner may renew his request for counsel in the event the motion to dismiss is denied. IT IS on this 2nd day of June 2026 ORDERED that: 1. The Motion at ECF No. 24 is DENIED. 2. The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Opinion and Order by regular mail.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Joseph Aruanno v. State of New Jersey, et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

Joseph Aruanno v. State of New Jersey, et al. (Joseph Aruanno v. State of New Jersey, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related