Matthew Jones v. DR. JOSE CAPIRO On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
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.

-- 3 of 3 --