Matthew Jones v. Jose Capiro

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-2155
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-2155 __________

MATTHEW JONES, Appellant

v.

DR. JOSE CAPIRO ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00895) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer L. Hall ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 24, 2025 Before: BIBAS, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 29, 2025) ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

Matthew Jones brought this civil rights action in the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming, inter alia, that defendant

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Dr. Jose Capiro violated his constitutional rights and committed the tort of medical

battery by having him involuntarily committed and by administering medication to treat

his schizophrenia. Dr. Capiro filed a motion for summary judgment along with a

declaration explaining that he has never been Jones’s treating physician, that he never

prescribed Jones any medication, and that his only interaction with Jones was in his

capacity as a consulting witness at a hearing before the Superior Court of Delaware

concerning an order for outpatient treatment to which Jones objected. The District Court

granted Dr. Capiro’s motion, concluding that he had no personal involvement in the

harms alleged and that he is immune from damages liability under longstanding Supreme

Court precedent and Delaware statutory law.

Jones appeals,1 but does not raise any issues for our review. He thus has forfeited

any arguments that might have been available to him—a consequence of his

noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that we explained to him

last year when he previously raised nothing of substance in an unrelated appeal he

initiated. See Jones v. Thomas, C.A. No. 23-2821, 2024 WL 1281129, at *1 (3d Cir.

Mar. 26, 2024) (citing FED. R. APP. P. 28(a); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d

Cir. 1993); Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)).

Nonetheless, as in that case, we have independently reviewed the record before us and

see no error.

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 The District Court correctly concluded that Dr. Capiro was not personally

involved in the decisions to have Jones committed or medicated. Indeed, the record

demonstrates that those decisions were made by a judicial officer and Jones’s treating

physicians. That undisputed fact is fatal to Jones’s Section 1983 claims, even assuming,

arguendo, that Dr. Capiro is a state actor, see Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1192, 1207

(3d Cir. 1988), and it dooms Jones’s medical battery claim as well, see Brzoka v. Olson,

668 A.2d 1355, 1360 (Del. 1995) (setting forth elements of common-law tort of battery in

medical context) (citing, inter alia, Newmark v. Williams, 588 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Del.

1991)). Dr. Capiro also is entitled to immunity for testifying at the proceeding before the

Delaware Superior Court. It is well-settled that “[Section] 1983 does not allow recovery

of damages against a private party for testimony in a judicial proceeding.” See Briscoe v.

LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 (1983). And Delaware law plainly precludes liability under

these circumstances. See 16 DEL. C. § 5017(c) (immunizing medical doctors from “civil

damages or criminal penalties for any harm to the person with a mental condition

resulting from the performance of the . . . doctor’s own functions” in connection with

commitment proceedings absent negligent, reckless, willful, wanton, or intentional

misconduct).

Accordingly, we will affirm.