Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 38 PageID: 223

DONELL L. PRINCE

P.O. Box 1024

Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-1024 (201) 218-0159 or (803) 614-0136

"L'ir.' " \)

Pro Se Plaintiff

Plaintiff Donell L. Prince
vs. Defendant (s)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY- NEWARK
FILE NO.: 2:09-CV-5429 JUDGE:
CIVIL ACTION AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND JURY DEMADED

Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Det. W. Inglima, individually and as police officer in Police Department,
city of Hackensack; and Det. A Gutierrez, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and
Det. A Ferraoili, individually and as police officer in Police
Department, city of Hackensack; and Lt. Lee, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Lt. Plunket, individually and as police officer in Police
Department, city of Hackensack; and Officer C. Toomey, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack;
and Officer J. Gervasi, B.C.I. Division, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and
Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Hackensack Police Department; and John Doe member (s) of Hackensack Police Department; and Court Administrator Janice Behnke, individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court staff; Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P. individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court staff; and Hackensack Municipal Court; and Bergen county Jail in City of Hackensack; and John Doe member (s) of Bergen
County Jail staff, individually and as members of Bergen County Jail; and E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Psychiatry Unit D1., part of Bergen County Jail, individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center and/or Bergen County Jail staff; and
Bergen Regional Medical Center; and Gail Pietrsla, individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff; and Sterling M.D., individually and as member of Bergen Regional
Medical Center staff; and Mohammad Mallick M.D., individuallY and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff; and Puudimamuthxuda M.D., individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff; and John Doe members Bergen

..

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 38 PageID: 224

Regional Medical center staff; and E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care plus New Jersey Inc. individually and as member of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. staff;
and Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; Bergen County Municipal Division; Bergen County Prosecutor and Prosecutor Ostuni and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Prosecutor (s) staff, individually and as members of Bergen County Prosecutors office; and Attorney General, State of New Jersey; and John Doe member (s) of N.J. Attorney General staff.

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 38 PageID: 225
Introduction 1. This is an action at law to redress the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to plaintiff (s) by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United states under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arising under the law and statutes of the State of New Jersey. Wherein defendants individually and/or together conspired and acted in such a way as to deprive plaintiff of civil rights, this matter started when four defendant police officers were caught illegally trying to enter/break into my apartment on 5/23, and made unlawful threats to cause imprisonment and 24 hours later carried out threat on 5/24 by making up multiple fictitious stories of incident to have plaintiff first incarcerated incommunicado for mental evaluation, claiming plaintiff had no rights for 19 hours, which got plaintiff committed and later drugged; and thereafter on 5/25 defendants deprive plaintiff of his rights further by the malicious filing of false criminal charges for
2nd & 3rd degree crimes, falsely arrested and maliciously
prosecuted me for these fictitious crimes. Other defendants acted separately and/or in concert which aids, abets and help conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law.
2. Thereafter plaintiff spent three months and five days in county jail before I was able to bailout and a total of two years and five months, until the fictitious charges were dismissed with prejudice on October 25, 2007, by County Municipal

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 4 of 38 PageID: 226
Court Judge Roy F. McGeady P.J.M.C.; these defendant police officers and others defendants conduct was willful, reckless, negligent, intentional, with no remorse, these serious crimes and terroristic acts, which caused great harm, physical and mental distress, pain, suffering, humiliation, financial hardship and loss for me and my family, which endangered my life, and indirectly lead to my stepfather Mr. N. Akridge early death, as well plaintiffs continued concerns about my safety and life, because these defendant officers are capable of doing anything to keep cover up what happened to protect themselves from criminal/civil responsibility. Therefore plaintiff demands trial by jury and request compensatory and punitive damages for all
losses, injuries, known & unknown, when this complaint was filed.
3. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) & 1343,
this being an action authorized by law to redress the deprivation of federal rights under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to plaintiff (s) by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and cost, the sum or value of ten thousand dollars pursuant to 28 V.S.C. § 1331.
5. Venue is proper in this District Court, wherein most of these events took place in the cities of Hackensack and Paramus in Bergen County, in state of New Jersey, where the

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 5 of 38 PageID: 227 •
plaintiff lived at 15 Lehigh street Apt. #41 in city of Hackensack and defendants worked in the cities of Hackensack and Paramus.
6. During all times mentioned in his complaint, plaintiff Donell Prince is of full age, and is a citizen of the United States and I now reside in Cliffside Park, New Jersey; and request all mail related to this complaint is to be sent and addressed to Donell L. Prince P.o. Box 1024, Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-1024.
7. At all times material to this complaint, defendants police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. diVision, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, and John Doe member (s) of police department, were employed as police officers at 225 State Street in city of Hackensack, State of New Jersey 07601, and were acting under the color of their official capacity and their acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of the city of Hackensack, State of New Jersey. Defendants police officers were the servants, agents, and employees of their co-defendant the Hackensack Police Department.
8. At all times mentioned here defendant Hackensack Police Department at 225 State Street in city of Hackensack, State of New Jersey 07601, was the employer of defendants police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Oet. W. Inglima, Oet. A Gutierrez, Oet. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 6 of 38 PageID: 228
C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, and Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242; and provided each of the individual defendants with an official badge and identification card which designated and described its bearer as police officers of said city police department.
9. At all times mentioned here defendant Court Administrator Janice Behnke and Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P. was employed at co-defendant Hackensack Municipal Court at 215 State street in city of Hackensack New Jersey 07601. Both defendants here were acting under the color of her official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of the city of Hackensack, state of New Jersey.
10. At all times mentioned here defendants Bergen County Jail and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Jail staff, at South River Street in city of Hackensack New Jersey 07601, was acting under the color of its official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of county of Bergen, state of New Jersey.
11. At all times mentioned here defendant E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Psychiatry Unit D1., part of Bergen County Jail, individually and as employee of co-defendants Bergen Regional Medical Center and/or Bergen County Jail staff. Co-defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center; Gail Pietrsla; Sterling M.D.; Mohammad Mallick M.D.; Puudimamuthxuda M.D.; and John Doe member

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 7 of 38 PageID: 229
(s) of staff at 230 East Ridgewood Avenue, Paramus New Jersey 07652, upon information and belief was a willful participant in joint activity with the city, county and state or it agents and is subject to federal court jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
12. At all times mentioned here defendants, E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. individually and as member of co-defendant Care Plus New Jersey Inc. staff at 610-611 Industrial Avenue, Paramus New Jersey 07652, upon information and belief was a willful participant in joint activity with the city, county and state or it agents and is subject to federal court jurisdiction under Title 28 § 1343.
13. During all times mentioned herein, the above individual defendants in paragraphs (7-13) and each of them, separately and in concert, acted under color and pretense of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usages of the State of New Jersey and the County of Bergen and the city of Hackensack. Each of the individual defendants and each of them, separately and in concert engaged in the illegal conduct, aided, abeted and help concealed this police misconduct hereto mentioned, to the injury of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States.
14. At all times mentioned here defendants, Bergen County

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 8 of 38 PageID: 230
Prosecutor, Prosecutor Ostuni and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Prosecutor staff; Bergen County Municipal Division at Justice Center, 10 Main street in Hackensack New Jersey 07601, was acting under the color of its official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of county of Bergen, and state of New Jersey.
15. At all times mentioned here defendants, Attorney General, State of New Jersey and/or John Doe member (s) of New Jersey Attorney General staff, at PO Box 085 Trenton New Jersey 08625-0085, individually and as members of Attorney General staff, was acting under the color of its official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of State of New Jersey.
16. (a) During all times mentioned herein, the individual defendants in paragraphs (14-15) and each of them, separately and in concert, acted under color and pretense of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usages of the state of New Jersey and the County of Bergen, Each of the individual defendants and each of them, separately and in concert, engaged in conduct hereto mentioned as it relates to their official indifference to these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by defendants police officers and other defendant charged with up holding the laws, police department and Municipal court staff obstruct justice and tried to stall, sabotage plaintiffs filling of criminal complaints and any investigation before it got started. while these same groups of continue to try and prosecute and

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 9 of 38 PageID: 231
railroad plaintiff for fictitious crimes. (b) When the Bergen County Prosecutor office and staff,
Bergen County Municipal Division and staff, Attorney General office and staff of the state of New Jersey ignore such blatant crimes of, Official Misconduct 2C:30-2; Official deprivation of civil rights 2C:30-6; Pattern of Official Misconduct 2C:30-7; Conspiracy 2C:5-2; Obstruction of Justice and other crimes related these serious crimes and terroristic acts; and refuse to allow a law abiding citizen to file complaints at their offices, their official indifference sends a clear message that its OK to victimize average citizens and the poor, this indifference aids, abets and help conceals police misconduct, to the injury of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United states and the laws of the United states as well as state Laws.
17. At this point plaintiff believes its important for the court have some general information related to plaintiff and past problems with some of these defendants, because plaintiff contends this information relates directly to this cause of action and some damages plaintiff is claiming.
General information and past problems 18. I am (50) fifty years old now and at the time of this incident on May 23, 2005, I was a (46) forty -six year old black male who had lived in the town of Hackensack for over (39) thirty-nine years, lived in the same apartment in town for over 22 twenty-two years, had worked at the same job in town for

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 10 of 38 PageID: 232
over (17) seventeen years before I got hurt and now have been collecting my Social Security every sense (1995) for permanent disability because of injuries to my cervical, 'thoracic and lumber spine from two auto accident from 1991 & 1995. I am still and have been a law abiding citizen, who's never tried to harm or threaten anyone, and who legally owned firearms every sense (1995), for home protection and target shooting.
19. (a) To put into context what's been going on, I think it's important that you know their was a past history between me and this Police department and Municipal court, dealing with my attempts from June of 1995 through 1999 to have some Hackensack police officers, medical center paramedics and others in the area held accountable for illegal and unethical conduct, and the covering up of same by others, that revolved around my 1995 auto accident which I was the victume caused by Hackensack Medical Center employees, wherein the paramedic and a police officer decided by just looking at me an seeing that I was black, that I had to be faking injuries because I complained of pain in my neck and back, when in fact I already had injuries to my cervical, thoracic and lumber spine from auto accident from 1991, after first trying to bully and intimidate into not wanting an accident report, the police officer falsified the accident report to blame the accident report on an unknown third party and thereafter the Police department and Municipal court refused to allow me to file complaints in the matter, I then tried to have them held accountable in court, for which I had been warned to back off

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 11 of 38 PageID: 233
by Hackensack Internal Affairs Police Caption Smith, ••.. " or things could happen to me, whether civil, criminal or otherwise, and told that if I was really injured I should only be concerned about my future, and not be interested justice and further stated that he was not threaten me either, that things just happen sometimes" ••....• (See listed under Ex. A)
(b) COincidentally some of their threats came true when a my former lawyer intentionally cause the loss of most of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy's in two civil matters entrusted to him, my attorney was Edward G. Johnson Esq., who at time he represented me, I found out later was a municipal appeal attorney, both the matter I was handing myself with the police and others and the attorney handling of insurance PIP benefits matter were being done at the same time. when this attorney made up fictitious court rules and laws, and secretly agree with opposition attorneys to handle my claims differently than the law requires and I instruct him to, which lead to the loss of my medical and income continuation benefits, this attorney actions were not simple mistakes and afterward said attorney told me, •.••• "their was nothing else he could do for me, and that I needed to understand that," things just happen sometime' ..•.....
(c) Coincidentally at the time of this incident on May 23,2005, I was working on an very important Appeal which needed to be filed to Supreme Court by June 6, 2005, (see attached under exhibits B) I had been trying to get my former lawyer named Edward G. Johnson Esq., who was at that time a County

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 12 of 38 PageID: 234
Adjuster and Department Head in Hackensack and three other attorney Joseph Charles Esq., Cyril S. Hodge Esq., and John J. Grossi III, into Court in a civil matter for illegal and/or unethical conduct. Questions of why my former lawyer intentionally cause the loss of over $350,000.00 of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy's in two civil matters entrusted to him, and whether said conduct had some connection with threats made by Hackensack police.
(d) Additionally before the May 23, 2005, incident their had been other acts related to my home, off and on while I was trying to get my former attorney into court which I believed was meant to scare me into backing off but I just couldn't prove it, I took steps to protect my apartment, by putting in a hidden camera and combination locks on my doors. All first floor apartment are on top of car garages and police officers were in the garages below my apartment; and for some unknown reason rotten egg other strong odors and fumes would flood only into my bedroom in the middle night on many occasion and then about two weeks before the May 23, 2005 incident someone in the middle of the night fired off five what I believe was blanks shots in the garage below my bedroom, then sped off in a car.
Allegations- illegally trying to enter/break into plaintiff apartment on 5/23/05 and made unlawful threats to cause imprisonment.
20. (a) This started between 9:30 p.m. 10:00 p.m. on the night of 5/23/05, when four (4) plain clothes narcotics Hackensack police officers, named Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 13 of 38 PageID: 235
#221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez and Det. A Ferraoili, were caught illegally trying to enter/break into my apartment, at my former address, at 15 Lehigh Street Apt.# 41 in Hackensack New Jersey 07601, wherein the police claiming they were chasing and lossed a suspect who had a warrant in the general area and upon returning to their car they saw my door ajar and carne to my apartment out of concern for safety of resident inside said police officers never rang door bell, never knocking on my door nor announce themselves as police officers, causing a incident and creating a very dangerous situation for all concerned; When plaintiff heard someone trying to enter/break into my apartment, plaintiff stood up and grabbed his legal gun to protect myself and turn on the lights, whoever was breaking in stop and back off, from were plaintiff was standing inside his apartment he could not see who was trying to enter/break in and they could not see plaintiff, the only other thing plaintiff did was peek around the corner of the wall inside his apartment. (see under exhibits D detailed account of incident on 5/23/05 & 5/24/05 with copies of photographs 1-8 that show and explain same)
(b) Two (2) of the four officers, a Sgt. Thomas Aiellos and another I believe to be Det. W. Inglima, tried to bully, intimidate and as well made threats before leaving because I dared to stand up them and for my rights, wherein Det. W. Inglima .... "threatened to arrest me if I didn't shut-up'· •.....• and thereafter Sgt. Thomas Aiellos stated •••••• "that I better stop thinking that people or out to get me before I find out what someone out to really get me could do to me" .•••

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 14 of 38 PageID: 236
Allegations- carrying out threats on 5/24/05 by having plaintiff first incarcerated incommunicado for mental evaluation.
21. What the police did next clearly was over the top, just to cover-up for the fact that they were caught illegally breaking into my apartment, on the night of May 24, 2005, around 10:00 p.m., police officers Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Oet. W. Inglima, Oet. A Gutierrez, Oet. A Ferraoili, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, came back to my home and told me that they needed me to come down to the police station with them to discuss what happened the night before on Monday May 23, 2005, I went willing with the police officer to the police station and was not arrest or in any handcuffs, once we got to the police station they lead me to a cell and asked me to step inside, wherein I asked if I'm under arrest for something, and asked for a phone call and a attorney, I was told by the police officers that I was not under arrest so was not entitle to a phone call or an attorney, and over the next (19) nineteen hour at the hospital the police continued to claim that I had no rights, the police claimed that they had a Court Order from the Municipal Court to take me to Bergen Regional Medical Center for an pychiatric evaluation for my on good. This is confirmed by, police department investigation report fill out by P.O. T. Gervasi #0512683, stating this was aid, I was victume, not under arrest, no complaint signed, between the hours of (22:10) 10:10 p.m. Tuesday night 5/24/05 until (15:00) 3:00 p.m. Wednesday 5/25/05;
see listed under exhibits E as (e-1). 22. (a) What I learned while I was at the emergency room

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 15 of 38 PageID: 237
in Bergen Regional Medical Center and from hospital records later was that Lt. Lee from the Hackensack Police Department had called, a psychiatric hot-line screener at Care Plus of New Jersey Inc., and Bergen Regional Medical Center Psychiatry Unit and told them; that an incident occurred with me on May 24, 2005 ....•• "wherein the police were responding to a domestic violence call at my apartment building, home and claimed that, I Donell L. Prince was sitting in my home with the door open, and with a loaded and cocked gun in my hand, pulled gun on police officers and threatened to kill the police officers, and then I put gun to my own head threatening to kill myself, also claiming that police officers struggled with me and took away loaded and cocked gun, also claimed that in cell at the station I talked to myself, and I was delusional and fighting imaginary people, and that I claimed that the police and others were plotting against me, that I had my refrigerator chained up while I was home"....... (see listed exhibits F)
(b) Upon information and belief this fictitious story was told to get the first doctor I saw at Psychiatry Unit and Care Plus psychiatry screener to believe, assume and quickly diagnose that I was homicidal, suicidal, psychotic, delusional and paranoid. What the police did here clearly was done to try to destroy my credibility, the police wanted this quick diagnose and wanted me released back into their custody, if that had happened the police would have been able to do anything they wanted to me and no one question them.
(c) Fortunately for me the head doctor in charge of the

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 16 of 38 PageID: 238
emergency room heard what was going on, and intervened on my behalf, after I told him what was go on, he decided to play it safe and try to contacted my family and my legal plan attorney to let them know what was happening, and would not release me back into police custody, the head doctor kept me for further evaluation. I was in the emergency room at hospital between 10:45 p.m. Tuesday night May 24, 2005 until 7:15 p.m. Wednesday evening May 25, 2005, hand cuffed to bed and under police guard. My sister Margo Prince came to emergency room with her friend and came into room I was being held in, when I called out her name, the police officer moved toward them and told them they could see me, but I yelled out and told her what was going on before officer got them out of the room, said officer came back into room where I was and pulled out his cell phone and called someone, lover heard him say, •••..• "there some woman hear claiming to be the sister of Donell Prince, also said what do we do now, we didn't know he had family in the area." •••••••
Allegations- carrying out threats on 5/25/05 by the malicious filing of false criminal charges for 2nd & 3rd degree crimes, falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted me for these fictitious crimes.
23. (al Plaintiff contends that whatever the police had plan for me changed after the emergency room head doctor intervened and my sister Margo Prince came to emergency room. The head doctor who had intervened on my behalf advised the police officer guarding me that they were going to keep me for further evaluation, and that sense I had not been charged with

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 17 of 38 PageID: 239
any crimes they were going to transfer me to the third floor, for my further evaluation which wasn't under lockdown and advised that if the police wanted me under lock down they would have to charge me with a crime, and then I could be placed in D-1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit, for further evaluation, this unit is part of Bergen County Jail at the hospital. The (John Doe) police officer guarding me contacted police station and thereafter spoke to head emergency room doctor and advised him that they were going to charge me with crimes and that the police station would fax over a copy of charge soon; thereafter on May 25, 2005, around 5:00 p.m. according to records/documents I was charged with Second & Third degree crimes, and $50,000.00 bail set by judge Dinice, and I was booked in at Bergen county jail D1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit at Bergen Regional Medical Center, This is confirmed when you look at (exhibit E) the police department investigation report fill out by P.o. T. Gervasi #0512683 as stated above, by three page printout of bergen county jail records, booking #D-38609, (see exhibit G), and by D1 Forensic (Joh Doe) staff who recorded in their records same (see exhibit F-a); after I was processed in at D1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit I was not allowed any visitors or mail while I was there, I found out later what these charges were from the public defender on July 1, 2005 at the main county jail building and thereafter got a print out sheet from county jail law library.
(b) What I later learned from police records was that police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima,

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 18 of 38 PageID: 240
Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, and P.o. J. Gervasi., ( DCI Div), had made up a different fictitious story of incident than what was told to Care Plus of New Jersey Inc., and Bergen Regional Medical Center Psychiatry Unit to get me charging me with Second & Third degree crimes, •••. " by claiming they were chasing and lossed a suspect who had a warrant in the area and on their way back to their car saw my door ajar and that they came to apartment out of concern for safety of resident inside and knocked on my door and announced themselves as police officers, and claimed that I open my door and pointed a gun at them on the night of May 23, 2005," ••... but didn't arrest me or report crimes. Police department investigation report fill out by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos #0512616 & #0512629 and three page letter by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos to police chief Zisa about what he claimed happened on Monday and Tuesday nights of the 5/23/05 & 5/24/05. (see exhibits H)
(c) Upon plaintiff belief that these arrest records warrant/complaint were back date to 5/24/05, by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P. and others to cover up what happened during the first (19) nineteen hour I was in police custody at the hospital, were the police continued to claim I was not under arrest, that I had no rights, was not entitle to a phone call or an attorney, that they had a Court Order from the Municipal Court to do this.
(d) In this second fictitious story of incident told by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, and other officers, claiming I committed Second & Third degree crimes involving a gun against the police

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 19 of 38 PageID: 241
on Monday 5/23/05 at about 8:50 p.m., but they didn't arrest me, nor reported a crime and didn't take gun because I had no violent history according to computer check, but instead continued to look for a suspect who they were chasing and lossed which had warrants, this suspect was Terrence Bease and had warrants related to shoplifting charges, (see exhibits I), the police department inVestigation report fill out by Det. W. Inglima #0512530 and police department arrest and pedigree sheet, which show Terrence Bease was arrested on Monday 5/23/05 at around 9:35 p.m., at 414 Essex street in Hackensack these record were not tUrn over until July 31, 2007; for over two years the police claimed Terrence Bease was a very dangerous criminal and that was their justification to come to my home, out of concern for the safety of the resident(s), these records shows that not to be true, and that Terrence Bease was arrested (6) six blocks up over a hill from plaintiff apartment building and was under arrest before they came to my apartment. Its also important to note that Sgt. Thomas Aiellos change the story again in testimony in court on September 13, 2007, now claiming ••.. "the incident at my apartment happened at 7:00 p.m., and they didn't arrest me because women and children were out side and they didn't want to scare and traumatize them" ........ .
(e) While Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, investigation reports #0512616 & #0512629, and three page letter to Police Chief Zisa claims (see exhibits H) he reported the crimes at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday 5/24/05 that had occurred on Monday 5/23/05, and thereafter file complaint and got warrant and then I was arrested

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 20 of 38 PageID: 242
on said warrant at 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday 5/24/05, read me my rights, was taken to police station and given copies of complaint and I was booked and processed by P.O. J. Gervasi.,( DCI Div)
(f) Both the Bergen County Prosecutor's office copy and defendant copy of complaint/warrant states I was arrested on 5/25/05. (see exhibits J & see G). I wasn't given the defendants green copy of complaint/warrant until April 5, 2006 in hackensack municipal court, this happened after Caption Smith came into the court room and the judge asked him to hand plaintiff the green defendants copy of original charge sheet, this was the same former Internal Affairs Caption Smith that had made past threats as stated above in paragraph the fact that the municipal court still had my defendants copy of complaint/warrant on April 5, 2006, over (10) ten months after the police claimed they gave it to me, tells all, the other inmates who had been arrested on complaint/warrant and booked had their green defendants copy explaining the charges and bail, I was the only inmate who didn't have his copy.
(g) When you look at Sgt. Thomas Aiellos investigation reports #0512616 & #0512629 and three page letter to Police Chief Zisa, how can the Sgt. Thomas Aiellos #0512616 report talk about things that has not happened yet i.e. this document was claimed filled out 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday 5/24/05, before complaint/warrant was issued so how can he claim a complaint was signed, claim I arrested at that time, also states "for further see case report", two of these things happened (4 to 5) hours later, in addition in the three page letter to Police

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 21 of 38 PageID: 243
Chief Zisa, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos is talking about something that happened on 5/25/05 where he states that " all evidence tagged, sealed, photographed and turn over to Det. P. Carroll (Detective Division) on 5/25/05 at 1630 hours." also claims that (" actor was processed & photograph by P.O. J. Gervasi- B.C.I. Division), when you look at the Arrest and Pedigree form at bottom where it states processed by, it's clear that another officer started to sign this form and than P.O. Gervasi name was written on top of same. (see exhibits H)
As it relates to; defendants E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; and Care Plus New Jersey Inc.
24. (a) Based on, after I bailed out of county jail, my attorney and I tried to get all the important notes/records of statements taken from plaintiff and defendants police officers on May 24 & 25 2005 by E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc., and was told by Care Plus New Jersey Inc., that the only records in the file is a summary/final report and that no other record were saved, records required by law to be saved, somehow got lossed or destroyed, after reading summary/final report, some of my statements had been misrepresented, taken at of context and/or falsified, this was done to help the police out based on their assumptions of facts, that I had to have done what the police claimed. when E. Fahey, interviewed me I made sure she took down my statement accurately and even read my statement, and she assured me that the notes/records would be saved. Instead of the record/notes

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 22 of 38 PageID: 244
showing my statements the police claimed that they had a Court Order from the Municipal Court to take me to Bergen Regional Medical Center for an pychiatric evaluation for my on good and other statements in context; E. Fahey, ...... "states that plaintiff told here on the night of 5/24/05 .••••..• and plaintiff advised that the police told plaintiff the decided to charge plaintiff for pointing a gun as it could have been dangerous for the police •.•.••..... , also claimed that plaintiff told her that plaintiff was more concerned that the super would put something in his food, like poison .••.
(b) Plaintiff contends the only reason to destroyed important notes/records was to protect themselves, defendants E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; and Care Plus New Jersey Inc., and/or the police from criminal/civil responsibility and to protect the system for which they are part of, from these serious criminal acts
of misconduct & abuse in office under color of law by the police.
As it relates to; defendants E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Psychiatry Unit Dl, Bergen Regional Medical Center; Gail Pietrsla; Sterling M.D.; Mohammad Mallick M.D.; Puudimamuthxuda M.D.; and John Doe members of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff;
25. (a) Based on, after I bailed out of county jail, my attorney and I tried to get all the important notes/records of statements taken on May 24, 2005 and thereafter, fortunately all these records were saved as required by law, by the medical

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 23 of 38 PageID: 245
center and show what my statements were. So when E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical center, Forensic Unit D1; intentionally misrepresent and falsified information in her final summary/report as relates to what I told her and the hospital, the hospital records clearly show that plaintiff statement were; ...... "that plaintiff grabbed his legal gun to protect myself because someone was breaking into my home" •.•••• Instead Dr. E. Schiffman, claims that I told her that, •••. " plaintiff pulled and pointed a gun at intruders/police officers, but I didn't know who they were" .••••• and were she state ...... "he had some insight and .fair judgment except that probably it wasn't a good idea to point a gun at the police although" •..••••••...•.
(b) While in D-1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit, at first the medical staff tried to force anti-psychotic drugs on me, claiming that the first emergency room doctor had ordered them, they did this by refusing to give me other medication I normally took at home before I was brought there, unless I took psychiatry drugs as well (i.e. medications for blood pressure, for stomach problems, for injuries to my cervical, thoracic and lumber spine). the staff later started complying with the medical centers on rules and regulations related to patient/inmate bill of rights, concerning medical care and the right to know what all medication are for, to refuse medications and the right to read name of medication and see same taking out of individual packages, the only funny part about this was that some of the staff tried to claim I was being paranoid because I wouldn't

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 24 of 38 PageID: 246
trust them with my medication after what they did. (c) While the Dr. Schiffman and other staff claimed that
they were going to get police reports, to find out who's version of events were true mine or the Hackensack police, to get to the truth to properly evaluate me, they seem to be just trying to scrutinize everything I did and said to justify the first emergency room doctor assumptions and quick diagnose. Also after the first few days Dr. Schiffman came to me and stated she had not been able to get the police records because of the holiday to properly evaluate me, she claimed they could only keep me there at 0-1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit for a few days, and asked me to do a voluntary committal for a few more days to give her the time to get the police records and do a proper evaluation, I agreed to try an protect myself from what every the police were trying to do, it would give me time to get an attorney and let family know what was going on, but after ten days Dr. Schiffman continued to claim she was having problems getting records, the staff then tried to get me to sign another voluntary committal and I refused. I later found out what Bergen Regional Medical center Forensic Psychiatry Unit 01 was billing my Medicare for my stay there and had billed 15,000.00 dollars, or more, defendants seemed to care more about milking my Medicare then getting to the truth; and
(d) On June 13 2005 I was sent to Bergen County Jail in Hackensack after I overheard a conversation between Or. Schiffman and some staff while I was coming out of one of the rear bathrooms at Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Unit 01,

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 25 of 38 PageID: 247
wherein she stated that ••....• "it turned out the inmate Prince was telling the truth that he was set up, but the bottom line is that nobody was going to take his word over the polices and that if he wasn't gOing to do something before he mite after this." .••.•.•• Plaintiff contends that these defendants intentionally misrepresent and falsified information in her final summary/report to protect themselves, and/or the police from criminal/civil responsibility and to protect the system for which they are part of, from these serious criminal acts
of misconduct & abuse in office under color of law by the police,
which plaintiff believes was part of the reason plaintiff got drugged at the county jail.
(e) Plaintiff contends that defendants Bergen Regional Medical Center; E. Schiffman, M.D.; Gail Pietrsla; Sterling M.D.; Mohammad Mallick M.D.; Puudimamuthxuda M.D.; John Doe member (s) of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff; E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey; Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law based on their assumptions of facts, that plaintiff had to have done what the police claimed, which led to plaintiff being committed and drugged.
As it relates to; Bergen County Jail and defendants John Doe members of Bergen County Jail medical staff and/or other staff.
26. (a) While at Bergen County Jail in Hackensack, at

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 26 of 38 PageID: 248
first I didn't have any problems with my medications there, medication was given dissolved in juice, I was getting only medication for blood pressure and stomach problems in the morning and two medications for neuropathic pain and to help me sleep, to help deal with problems related to injuries to my cervical, thoracic and lumber spine in the evening. than someone at the Bergen County Jail ordered and started putting anti psychotic drug in my med's at first smaller doses and than larger ones and at first weekday medical staff lied about, I started having a lot of problems after taking med's my heart would start racing bad, my blood pressure would go up, I would get very dizzy and almost pass out, my mouth and throat would numb up and I would start to gag, and I felt short of breath, get bad headaches, couldn't think or focus clearly and would get pain in my kidney area. When I asked the regular weekly nurse again about any changes from the two med's, and this time she claimed that I have always been taking anti-psychotic drugs as part of my evening med's, at this point I refused to take any med's dissolved in juice and then weekday medical staff tried to force anti-psychotic drugs on me, they did this by refusing to give me my regular medication.
(b) Plaintiff found out the truth from the older black weekend nurse who told me that someone, she didn't know who wrote a prescription order for the anti-psychotic drug called Seroquel on August 5, 2005, to be given to me, said nurse told me I would have to talk to doctors to get further information about this, I tried to find out who order this anti-psychotic

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 27 of 38 PageID: 249
drug and why, because I had not done anything, the doctors wouldn't talk to me and ignored my sick call slips related to same after that.
(c) While at bergen county jail the medical staff ignored my sick call slips for two weeks related to me losing a lot of blood in my stool, additionally the bergen county jail refused to turn over the record from plaintiff stay at jail, first to public defender office as was told to me by attorney and than later refused to turn records over to plaintiff
As it relates to defendants Prosecutor office and John Doe members of staff.
27. (a) After bailing out jail on August 30, 2005 I collected what recordS/documents I could and contacted by letter dated october 25, 2005, the Attorney General Office about this matter, detailing attempts to prosecute me for fictitious crimes, their reference #2005~8976, and thereafter when plaintiff went to Trenton, February 22, 2007, with my sister and mother, the Attorney General Office told plaintiff they contacted Prosecutor office and forwarded my letter to them in November 2005, also plaintiff sent another letter to Attorney General Office dated February 26, 2007. (see exhibits K)
(b) On November 15, 2005, Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni & Prosecutor office downgraded charges and remand back to Hackensack Municipal Court, instead of throwing out the fictitious crimes, change from (N.J.S.2C:12-lb(9) aggravated assault on police officer to 2C:12-1A(3) simple assault disorderly and from (N.J.S. 2C:39-4a) possession of weapon for

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 28 of 38 PageID: 250
illegal purpose to 2C:33-2A(2) creates dangerous condition; (see exhibits L)
(c) After plaintiff went to Trenton, February 22, 2007, went to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to try and file criminal complaints because of serious crimes and attempts to cover up same by a number of Hackensack Police officers and others with the potential involvement of Hackensack Municipal Court staff in same. I was told by two investigators that they had not heard from Attorney General Office in this matter and the downgraded charges were based on their investigation, I was not allowed to file said criminal complaints at the Prosecutor's Office and same would have to be filed at the Hackensack Municipal Court, I was also told that it could take up to (5) five years to investigate my complaint against the police when they get it,
(d) After trying to file complaints at Hackensack Municipal Court, plaintiff thereafter went to the Bergen County Administrative offices for the Municipal Courts to complain about what occurred at the Hackensack Municipal Court, and see if I could file complaints there, they said no but stated they would call the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to see if they would allow me to file criminal complaints there, given what happened at Hackensack Municipal Court, but they stated the Prosecutor's office said no.
As it relates to defendants Hackensack Municipal Court, Administrator Janice Behnke, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, John Doe member (s) of police

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 29 of 38 PageID: 251
department. 28. (a) On the following dates of, September 12, 15,
18, 2006, claimant Donell L. Prince along with mother Myrna Akridge (12,15,18) and sister Margo Prince (12), came to the Hackensack Municipal Court and spoke to Court Administrator Janice Behnke to fill some criminal complaints pursuant State of New Jersey Municipal Court Rules (7:2-1 )" •... which requires the municipal court administrator or deputy administrator shall accept for filling every complaint made by any person" ... ; Plaintiff had a copy of Rule (7:2-1) with me because of a past problem with municipal court administrator and police department trying to fill a past complaint against a city police officer wherein court administrator Janice Behnke claimed I wasn't allowed to fill complaints against police there, as did the police department, plaintiff had to contact the Attorney general office and the Bergen County Municipal Court administrator to try and deal with this.
(b) Plaintiff brought with him a five page summary of the issue and people involved who I wanted to file complaints because of serious crimes and attempts to cover same by a number of Hackensack Police officers and others with the potential involvement of Hackensack Municipal Court staff in same. After reviewing five page summary, instead of allowing me to fill criminal complaints pursuant to state court rule (7:2-1), Court administrator claimed I wasn't allowed to fill complaints until after I get police reports from police department concerning the issues. thereafter at police department after

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 30 of 38 PageID: 252
reviewing and copying my five page summary, some stalling and the filling out of an one page Internal Affairs report by the john doe lieutenant on duty at desk, said Court administrator Janice Behnke came to police department and spoke to supervising officers and left, plaintiff was told by the lieutenant that the Court administrator wanted the matter handled by sending it through Internal Affairs first before any complaint would be allowed to be filled. Plaintiff was told by john doe lieutenant plaintiff would have to contact Capt. Walsh in charge of Internal Affairs who wasn't in then.
(c) Thereafter police officers Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, John Doe member (s) of police department; intentionally misrepresenting and/or changed of information from plaintiff statement of what occurred in this investigative reports they claimed I need to file criminal complaint, to try an create credibility issues with my claims, and in doing so;
(d) Plaintiff contends that members of police department and municipal court staff obstruct justice and tried to stall, sabotage my filling of criminal complaints and any investigation before it got started as it related to continued attempts to keep cover up and control the outcome related serious crimes and terroristic acts, committed by members of police department and others, while these same groups of continue to try and maliciously prosecute and railroad me for fictitious crimes.
As it relates to defendants Attorney General Office, john doe members Attorney General staff and Bergen County Municipal

· Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 31 of 38 PageID: 253
,
Division and staff ; 29. (a) On February 22, 2007, I Donell L. Prince along
with mother Myrna Akridge and sister Margo Prince, carne to the Department of Law and Public Safety to file a complaint and find out why my letter dated October 25, 2005 was not responded to, We were told by an investigator, my letter dated October 25, 2005 was received, and gave plaintiff reference #2005-8976 for same, and a copy was sent to the Bergen county Prosecutor's Office, and that I couldn't file a complaint as it related to the Bergen County Prosecutor's handling of these matters concerning the Hackensack Police Department and Hackensack Municipal Court and plaintiff would have to put my concerns in writing, letter dated February 26, 2007, was sent to Attorney General Office, by plaintiff and Attorney General Office sent a letter in response, (see exhibits under K) basically stating they are unable to investigate matters that are the responsibility of another law enforcement agency, such as muniCipal police departments and county prosecutor's office.
(b) After trying to file complaints at Hackensack Municipal Court, plaintiff thereafter went to the Bergen County Administrative offices for the Municipal Courts to complain about what occurred at the Hackensack Municipal Court, and see if I could file complaints there, they said no but stated they would call the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to see if they would allow me to file criminal complaints there, given what happened at Hackensack Municipal Court, but they stated the Prosecutor's office said no.

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 32 of 38 PageID: 254
30 (a) During all times mentioned herein, the individual
defendants in paragraphs (27 & 29), are charged with the
protection of the public, the enforcement of provisions of Constitution, the Civil Rights Laws, the criminal laws through policing and prosecution and/or administrative responsibility over city municipal courts and their staff to ensure the high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of these court, as well as the adherence to applicable rules, polices and directives of the Supreme Court, including the code of conduct for judiciary employees and to address, investigate the complaints, concerns from the public. These defendants have a duty to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Laws of the united States and State of New Jersey for all citizens,
(b) When the Bergen County Prosecutor office and staff, Bergen County Municipal Division and staff, Attorney General office and staff of the State of New Jersey, ignore such blatant crimes of, Official Misconduct 2C:30-2i Official deprivation of civil rights 2C:30-6i Pattern of Official Misconduct 2C:30-7; Conspiracy 2C:5-2; Obstruction of Justice etc. related to these serious crimes and terroristic acts; and refuse to allow a law abiding citizen to file complaints at their offices, their official indifference sends a clear message that its OK to victimize average citizens and the poor, this indifference aids, abets and help conceals police misconduct, to the injury of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 33 of 38 PageID: 255
to the Constitution of the United States and State laws. Allegations as to Denial of Civil Rights:
31. Each of the individual defendants, separately and in concert, acted wilfully, knowingly, and purposefully with the specific intent to deprive plaintiff of his rights to:
a) be safe in his homes with out police illegally trying to enter/break in.
b) be free from unlawful intimidation, threats to cause imprisonment and retaliation from police officers when we stand up for our rights.
c) freedom from illegal seizure of his person, from illegal detention, imprisonment and from being held incommunicado for mental evaluation based on fictitious crimes which got plaintiff committed and later drugged.
d) freedom from malicious filing of false criminal charges for 2nd & 3rd degree crimes, falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted for these fictitious crimes.
e) every citizens rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by State and Federal Laws, should not be ignored by the people charged with enforcing the laws whether at the city, county or state level.
All of these rights are secured to plaintiff by the provision of the due process clause of the Fifth and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and by Title 18 United states Code § 245 (1968).

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 34 of 38 PageID: 256
Allegations alleging Conspiracy: 32. (a) Plaintiff real leges paragraphs 1-30 of the claim above all defendants acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law. (b) The individual violation of defendants, and each of them, in violation of Title 42 united states Code § 1983 did conspire separately and/or between themselves and with other person or persons, for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice in the state of New Jersey, and with intent to deny to plaintiff Donell Prince, the equal protection of the laws to injure plaintiff from lawfully attempting to obtain his rights under the Constitution of U.S., to equal protection under the laws.
Allegations as to Damages: 33. (a) As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the individual defendants, and each of them, separately and/or in concert caused plaintiff Donell Prince to suffer greatly when he was committed and drugged for fictitious crimes and spent three months and five days in county jail before I was able to bailout and a total of two years and five months, until the fictitious charges were dismissed with prejudice on October 25, 2007, by County Municipal Court Judge Roy F. McGeady P.J.M.C.i these defendant police officers and others defendants conduct was willful, reckless, negligent, intentional, with no remorse, these serious crimes and terroristic acts, which caused great harm, physical and mental distress, pain, suffering,

. Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 35 of 38 PageID: 257
humiliation, financial hardship, credit problems and loss for me and my family, which endangered my life as well plaintiffs continued concerns about my safety, because plaintiff knows first hand what some of these defendant officers are capable of doing.
(b) Plaintiff was forced to incur substantial obligations for attorneys fees, and other expenses in the defense of himself against fictitious charges and the unfounded and unwarranted prosecution by defendants, which has been a serious burden to plaintiff and his family, therefore plaintiff demands trial by jury and request compensatory and punitive damages for all
losses, injuries, known & unknown, when this complaint was filed,
caused by these defendants acts, and/or any injury concealed by these defendants.
(c) Plaintiff pleads special damages for the loss of the civil action I was not able to pursue because of these defendants conduct, punitive damages, all out-of-pocket expense for this action, interest, if attorney is hired, all attorney fees.
Plaintiff bail was $5,000.00; legal expenses at about $5,000.00; loss of rent assistance at around $500.00 month; financial hardship, ruin credit, court judgments @ about $4000.00; and all expense incurred by plaintiff family related to this matter, in addition to my Appeal in the matter of; Donell L. Prince vs. Edward G. Johnson Esq., et al. Supreme Court - Docket Number 57,871, Appellate Division - Docket Number A-1453 03-T5 Bergen Superior Court - Docket No. BER-L-5749-02

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 36 of 38 PageID: 258
\
at a cost of Years of work and thousands of dollars in costs and the value of the case itself, Compensatory damages alone is over $350,000.00 of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy; fees & cost for this legal action; punitive damages; etc.
In addition to damages plaintiff seeks the appointment of an independent board to review citizens complaints, while I don't know whether this would do much good, their has to be some independent process with the authority to hold people accountable to protect the average citizens, when the rule of law breaks down as it has here. When dealing with people charged with enforcing the laws, who feel that the laws don't apply to them and that we average citizens have no rights unless they decide we do, their a serious problem, what happen to me should never happen to anyone else. Clearly citizens should be able to stand up for their rights without fear of retaliation from police officers and other professional when you try to hold them accountable for illegal unethical conduct.
Back in 1995 I spoke to police Chief Zisa about the rumor going around that if someone tried to hold police officers accountable for illegal unethical conduct, that the police would try to ruin and destroy people, Chief Zisa claimed that this kind of thing didn't happen, unfortunately as I have learned the rumor was true and I believe they made an example of me. It's also important to note what has been happening, after these fictitious crimes/charges were dismissed. While I believe in coincidences, I don't trust them and while I don't have direct

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 37 of 38 PageID: 259
proof, I believe there been attempts to drug me and possibly try an set me up for drug crimes, to try an discredit me and scare me into backing off, with the past conduct of these defendants, they clearly have motive and the means an would commit such cowardly terroristic acts, I bring this up to try do what little I can to protect myself and if they are involved to let them know that, know matter how lies you tell, nor drug fumes coming in my rooms while I sleep, I want be bullied, intimidated, drugged into submission or scared off from standing up for my rights, know matter how much money, power or influence you all may wield and if you don't know by now we Christians are not cowards.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Donell Prince demands judgment for

all damages, in the amount of

against the defendants,

jointly and severally, and costs.

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 38 of 38 PageID: 260
Certification Pro Se Plaintiff certifies that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief formed after an inquiry, reasonable under the circumstances, the Complaint: (a) ..• is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass ... , (b) ••• the claims •••. and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (c) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery ....
Plaintiff certifies that the amount in controversy exceeds $150.000.00.
Plaintiff certifies that their are no pending court action, arbitrations or administrative proceeding that plaintiff is aware of.
Dated: Feruary 13, 2010
Pro Se Plaintiff Donell Prince

...

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 5-1 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 261

M.L.

United States District Court

District of New Jersey- Newark

King,

Jr.

Federal Bldg. & U.S. 50 Walnut Street

Courthouse L0,,,.,'.:(), ,.,".."Li 1,\I)

Newark, New Jersey 07102

1 t/-\" II!,.' ~")

CIVIL COVER SHEET
PRO SE PLAINTIFF DONELL PRINCE'S CIVIL ACTION; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND JURY DEMANDED, NO RELATED CASES.

Plaintiff - Donell Prince, resides in Bergen County and is a citizen of the United States.

Defendants - Hackensack police officers, sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, Internal Affairs
Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, John Doe member (s) of police department; Hackensack Police Department; Court Administrator Janice Behnke; Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth
P.; Hackensack Municipal Court; Bergen County Municipal Division;
Bergen county Jail; John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Jail staff; Bergen Regional Medical Center; E. Schiffman, M.D.;
Gail Pietrsla; Sterling M.D.; Mohammad Mallick M.D.; Puudimamuthxuda M.D.; John Doe member (5) of Bergen Regional Medical center staff; E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey; Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; Bergen County Prosecutor; Prosecutor Ostuni; John Doe member
(s) of Bergen County Prosecutor (5) staff; Attorney General, State of New Jersey; John Doe member
(s) of N.J. Attorney General staff.

The events of this complaint took place in the cities of Hackensack and Paramus in Bergen County, where the plaintiff lived at 15 Lehigh Street Apt. #41 in city of Hackensack and defendants worked in the cities of Hackensack and Paramus, N.J ••
Upon belief almost all these defendants are citizens of the United States and still work in Bergen County.

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) & 1343, this
being an action authorized by law to redress the deprivation of federal rights under color of law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity
secured to plaintiff (5) by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Submitted by:

Dated: February 13, 2010

Pro Se Plaintiff

DONELL L. PRINCE, P.O. Box 1024, Hackensack, New Jersey

07602-1024; cells - (201) 218-0159 or (803) 614-0136

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 274

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

George A. Prutting, Jr.

PRUTTING & LOMBARDI

701 South White Horse Pike

Audubon, NJ 08106

(856) 547-8404

Attorneys for Defendants, Erin Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc.

______________________________

DONELL L. PRINCE

:CIVIL ACTION NO.2:09-CV-5429

:

Plaintiff

:

vs.

:

:Document

Filed Electronically

SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS BADGE

:

#221, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

:

POLICE OFFICER IN POLICE

:

DEPARTMENT, CITY OF

:

HACKENSACK, ET AL

:

: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S

Defendants :

AMENDED COMPLAINT

______________________________:

Defendants, E. Fahey, M.A. and Care Plus NJ, Inc., way of

Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, state that:

INTRODUCTION

1. This paragraph contains conclusion of law to which no

response is required. Further, this paragraph contains

allegations that are not directed to

Answering Defendants and

accordingly no answer is required to said allegations; and

Answering Defendants state further that this paragraph is

otherwise denied and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at

the time of trial.

2. This paragraph contains conclusion of law to which no

response is required. Further, this paragraph contains

allegations that are not directed to

Answering Defendants and

accordingly no answer is required to said allegations; and

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 275
Answering Defendants state further that this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
3. The allegations of this paragraph contain conclusion of law to which no answer is required and these allegations are otherwise denied and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
4. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information so as to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave the Plaintiff strictly to his proofs at time of trial.
5. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
6. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information so as to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave the Plaintiff strictly to his proofs at time of trial.
7. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
8. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise
2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 276
left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial. 9. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to
these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
10. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
11. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.
12. Denied as stated. 13. Denied as to Answering Defendants. 14. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial. 15. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial. 16. The allegations of this paragraph are not directed to these answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is otherwise
3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 277

left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

17. This paragraph does not set forth any allegations of

fact as to the Answering Defendants or the incident complained of

and accordingly no answer is required and this paragraph is

otherwise denied and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at

the time of trial.

18. This paragraph does not contain allegations of facts

relative to the incident complained of or any allegations of fact

as against Answering Defendants, but rather presents a narrative

of unrelated events and accordingly, no answer is required and

this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is left strictly

to his proofs at the time of trial.

19.

(a,b,c,&d) These paragraphs do not contain allegations

of facts relative to the incident complained of or any allegations

of fact as against Answering Defendants, but rather presents a

narrative of unrelated events and accordingly no answer is

required and this paragraph is otherwise denied and Plaintiff is

left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

20.

(a&b) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and further Answering Defendants are without

sufficient knowledge as to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of these statements and Plaintiff is left strictly to his

proofs at the time of trial.

21. The allegations of these paragraphs are not directed to

these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is required

4

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 278

and further Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge

as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these statements

and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

22. (a,b&c) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and further Answering Defendants are without

sufficient knowledge as to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of these statements and Plaintiff is left strictly to his

proofs at the time of trial.

23. (a,b,c,d,e,f&g) The allegations of these paragraphs are

not directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no

answer is required and these allegations are otherwise denied and

Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

24. (a) Denied.

(b)

Denied.

25. (a,b,c&d) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to this Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer is

required and these allegations are otherwise denied as stated and

Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

25. (e) Denied as to Answering Defendants. As to the

balance of the allegations of this paragraph, they are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and these allegations are otherwise denied as stated

and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

26. (a,b&c) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

5

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 279

is required and these allegations are otherwise denied as stated

and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

27. (a,b,c&d) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and these allegations are otherwise denied as stated

and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

28.

(a,b,c,&d) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and these allegations are otherwise denied as stated

and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

29. (a&b) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and these allegations are otherwise denied as stated

and Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

30. (a&b) The allegations of these paragraphs are not

directed to these Answering Defendants and accordingly no answer

is required and these allegations are otherwise denied and

Plaintiff is left strictly to his proofs at the time of trial.

31. (a,b,c,d&e) Denied as to Answering Defendants.

32. (a&b) Denied.

33.

(a,b&c) Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Defendants state they are not guilty of any negligence. 2. Defendants state they violated no duty or obligation which they owed to the Plaintiff. 3. Defendants state that the Plaintiff was guilty of
6

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 280
negligence and/or contributory negligence. 4. Any claim against these Defendants is barred or
diminished by the contributory negligence and/or comparative negligence or other conduct of the Plaintiff and/or that of other parties to this litigation.
5. Any loss or damage sustained by the Plaintiff was due to the negligence or other conduct of persons over whom these Defendants exercised no control, nor right of control.
6. The Complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and these Defendants reserve their right to move at or before time of trial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7. This action is barred by any applicable Statute of Limitations of actions, and/or Statute of repose.
8. There is a lack of jurisdiction over the person of the Defendants by reason of the insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. These Defendants, therefore, reserve the right to move for dismissal of the Complaint.
9. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 10. These Defendants specifically deny being liable for punitive damages. 11. Defendant hereby adopts any and all rights and defenses under the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act, NJS 2A:15-5.9, et . seq. 12. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional.
7

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 281

13. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damage violates these

Defendants' right to protection from "excessive fines" as is

provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States

Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and

violates these Defendants rights to substantive due process as

provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New

Jersey.

14. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages violates these

Defendants’ rights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution

of the State of New Jersey.

15. By virtue of Plaintiff's baseless claims, Defendants

are entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and

expenses in accordance with the New Jersey Frivolous Litigation

Statute, N.J.S.A. 28:15-59.1.

16.

Plaintiff has not been deprived any right, privilege or

immunity secured to him by the United Stated Constitution, any

Act of Congress or the New Jersey State Constitution.

17. These Answering Defendants are immune from suit by

virtue of N.J.S. 2A:53A-7.

18. These Answering Defendants are protected from suit by

the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity.

19. These Answering Defendants are protected from suit by

the Doctrine of Good Faith.

20. These Answering Defendants at all times were acting

8

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 282

pursuant to contract with and funding provided by the New Jersey

State Division of Mental Health Services and at all times were

acting pursuant to the lawful authority invested in them by the

State. All acts so performed were the result of the appropriate

exercise of these Defendants’ discretion.

21.

Answering Defendants acted at all times relevant hereto

with good faith and without any fraud or malice.

22. Answering Defendants herein did not know and were not

reasonably expected to know that any actions taken by them with

respect to this Plaintiff, at all times relevant hereto, were in

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional, statutory or other

rights.

23. Answering Defendants are protected from suit by the

immunity conferred by N.J.S. 30:4-27.7(a).

24. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, limited and/or

controlled by the provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act,

N.J.S. 59:1-1, et seq., as applicable to Answering Defendants

through the Doctrine of Derivative Immunity and the Complaint

further is barred by the failure of Plaintiff to give timely

notice of a claim or to present a claim thereunder.

25. Through the Doctrine of Derivative Immunity, the

Answering Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the

provisions of N.J.S. 59:1-1, et seq.

26. Plaintiff has not suffered any injury or damages

attributable to any conduct of Answering Defendants.

27. Answering Defendants assert all rights and defenses to

9

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 283
which they may be entitled under the United Stated Constitution and Amendments thereto, as well as the New Jersey State Constitution.
28. All acts of the Answering Defendants were the result of the appropriate exercise of their accepted professional judgment following accepted procedures.
29. The Defendants hereby reserve the right to interpose such other defenses and objections as a continuing investigation may disclose.
CROSSCLAIM FOR INDEMNIFICATION These Defendants by way of Crossclaim against all CoDefendants says that without admitting any liability herein, if these Defendants are found liable to the Plaintiff, such liability is secondary, passive, constructive, or otherwise imputed by law, whereas the liability of Co-Defendants was active and primary. WHEREFORE, these Defendant demand(s) judgment by way of indemnity against all Co-Defendants together with interest, costs of suit and counsel fees.
CROSSCLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION These Defendants demand(s) contribution under the Joint Tortfeasors Act, NJSA 2A:53A-1 et seq. and Comparative Negligence Act, NJSA 2A-15-5.3 against all co-defendants.
10

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 10 Filed 03/12/10 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 284

VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 11.2

1. I hereby certify that to my knowledge, the matter in

controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any

court or of a pending arbitration proceeding.

2. To my knowledge, no other action or arbitration

proceeding is contemplated.

3. I have no knowledge at this time of the names of any

other party who should be joined to this action.

PRUTTING

& LOMBARDI

BY:__s/ DATE: March 12, 2010

George A. Prutting, Jr. GEORGE A. PRUTTING, JR. Attorney for Defendants E. Fahey, M.A. and Care Plus NJ, Inc.

11

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 40 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 581

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL PRINCE,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THOMAS AIELLOS, et ai.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

----------------------~)

LINARES, District Judge.

Civil Action No.: 09-5429 (JLL) ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss [CM/ECF #21] filed by

Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center and joined by Defendants Bergen County Jail, E.

Fahey, and Care Plus NJ, Inc. (collectively "moving Defendants"). Also before the Court at this

time is the motion [CM/ECF #36] for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise reply

out of time filed by Plaintiff Donell Prince ("Plaintiff'). No oral argnment was held. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 78.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties on the docket, this Court finds that the date

for filing an opposition to moving Defendants' motion to dismiss has passed, and that it is

appropriate to consider the motion as unopposed. The applicable inquiry under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is well-settled. Courts must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the

complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.l See

1 In doing so, a court may look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and any accompanying attachments, and may not look at the record. See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild,
-1-

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 40 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 582
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429, 434-35 (3d Cir. 2000). However, courts are not required to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429 (3d Cir. 1997). Similarly, legal conclusions draped in the guise offactual allegations may not benefit from the presumption of truthfulness. See In re Nice Sys., Ltd. Sec. Litig., 135 F. Supp. 2d 551, 565 (D.NJ. 2001).
A sound complaint must set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the proscriptions of Rule 8 apply to all plaintiffs, when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the complaint liberally. Altson v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3d Cir. 1999) (recognizing the courts' "time-honored practice of construing pro se plaintiffs' pleadings liberally"). Moreover, given the disparity in legal sophistication, the court will hold a complaint submitted by a pro se plaintiff to a less exacting standard than one submitted by trained counsel. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.C!. 2197,2200 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
The primary ground moving Defendants rely upon is the statute oflimitations. They allege that Plaintiffs cause of action under § 1983 accrued on May 24, 2005, when he was removed from his home by the Hackensack police and placed at Bergen Regional Medical Center for psychiatric evaluation. (Def. Bf. at I.) They further argue that as he filed his complaint on
O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1251, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).
-2-

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 40 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 583
October 20,2009, he beyond the time permitted under the applicable statute oflimitations by more than two years, and his complaint must be dismissed on that basis. (Id. at 1-2.)
After an examination of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, this Court finds that he alleges that he was seized by Hackensack police and placed under in-patient psychiatric supervision on May 24, 2005. Plaintiff was later transferred to a correctional facility, and he was let out on bail from that facility on August 30, 2005. His Amended Complaint alleges violations of § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution. (Am. Compi. ~ 31.) He also alleges a § 1983 conspiracy. (Id. ~ 32.) There is no allegation concerning moving Defendants in the Amended Complaint that occurred after 2005.
Under the "Third Circuit rule," a defendant may prevail on the statute oflimitations at the motion to dismiss stage "ifthe time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute oflimitations." Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128,135 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Hanna v. United States Veterans' Admin. Hosp., 514 F.2d 1092, 1094 (3d Cir. 1975)). The statute oflimitations on § 1983 actions in this District is two years. O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 126-27 (3d Cir. 2006). A § 1983 cause of action accrues under federal law when the allegedly wrongful act occurred. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Here, no wrongful act by moving Defendants is alleged to have occurred later than the end of2005, well over two years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this case. Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted with prejudice.
With respect to Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise reply, this Court finds that Plaintiff requests relief that is not available to him. Plaintiff is not a defendant in this case and cannot make ex parte requests for extensions on behalf of his
-3-

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 40 Filed 04/23/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 584
adversaries, as he has no standing to do so. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, - U.S. - , 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (requiring plaintiff to have "a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy"). This Court, therefore, will deny Plaintiffs request for extensions oftime for defendants who have not answered or otherwise moved at this time.
Given that Plaintiffis pro se, however, this Court will grant Plaintiff (I) an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to serve any Defendants who have not yet been served, and (2) an additional thirty (30) days from the date ofthis Order to move for default against Defendants this Court referred to in its April 5, 2010 Letter Order.
IT IS, therefore, this 2:::;"'£ day of April, 2010,
ORDERED that moving Defendants' motion to dismiss [CMlECF #21] is GRANTED and that the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to Bergen Regional Medical Center, Bergen County Jail, E. Fahey, and Care Plus NJ, Inc.; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to answer, move, or otherwise reply [CMlECF #36] is DENIED for lack of standing; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to serve any Defendants who have not yet been served; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to move for default against Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, Del. W. Inglima, Del. A. Guitierrez, Del. A. Ferraoli, Lt. Lee, Officer C. Toomey, Officer J. Gervasi, Sgt. A, Trezza, Hackensack Police
-4-

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 40 Filed 04/23/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 585 Dept., Court Administrator Janice Behnke, Elizabeth P., Hackensack Municipal Court, E. Schiffinan, M.D., Bergen County Municipal Court, Bergen County Prosecutor, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, and Prosecutor Ostoni.
Jose L. Linares United States District Judge
-5-

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 79 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1271

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS AIELLOS, Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 09-5429 (JLL) ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of several motions: (I) Plaintiffs motion to vacate this Court's April 23, 2010 Order granting motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Bergen Regional Medical Center, Bergen County Jail, E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc., (2) Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, and (3) four motions to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint filed by various Defendants. The Court has considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the instant motions. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Based on the reasons that follow: Plaintiffs motion to vacate is granted; Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint is granted; and Defendants motions to dismiss the complaint are denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff commenced the instant cause of action in October 2009. An Amended Complaint was filed in February 2010, setting forth claims pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and conspiracy. A motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was filed by Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center on April 5, 20 10. The motion was joined by Defendants E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc. on April 16,2010. On April 23, 2010, Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. In doing so, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to oppose said motion and found that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims as against the foregoing defendants were barred by the two-year statute oflimitations given that "no wrongful act by moving Defendants is alleged to have occulTed later than the end of2005, well over two years prior to the tiling of the original complaint in this case." See Docket Entry No. 40 at 3.

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 79 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1272
On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate this Court's April 23, 2010 decision pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 60(b)(6) and a request to stay this Court's April 23, 2010 decision pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 62(b)(4). Plaintiffseeks to vacate this Court's April 23,d decision on the basis that: (I) he had not received Defendant's motion when it was originally filed, (2) he had submitted a letter to the Court requesting an automatic extension oftime in which he could respond to Defendant's motion prior to the Court's decision, and (3) the Court erroneously deemed the motion as unopposed and rendered its decision without considering Plaintiff's request for an extension oftime in which to respond to same. The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the Plaintiff, including the letter requesting an extension, dated April 13, 2010. Although this letter does not appear on the Court's docket and was not in this Court's possession at the time it rendered its April 23,d decision, the letter appears to have been stamped by the Clerk's Office on April 13, 2010. Accordingly, in the interest ofjustice, and given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate its April 23, 2010 decision. Plaintiff's motion to vacate is, therefore, granted. Plaintiff's request that this Court's April 23,d decision be stayed is denied as moot.
Having vacated this Court's April 23, 2010 decision, the Court must now re-entertain the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center (which was joined by Defendants E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc.). Also before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by: (I) the Municipal Defendants,' (2) Police Officers Thomas Aiellos, A. Gutierrez and A. Ferraioli, (3) the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage Municipal Division, and (4) the Bergen Prosecutor Defendants.' Each of the foregoing motions seek dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, including Plaintiff's § 1983 conspiracy claim.
On May 20,2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. See Docket Entry No. 54. Plaintiff seeks to amend the Amended Complaint "to make more clear
, The "Municipal Defendants" include: The Hackensack Police Officers, Lieutenant Lee, Lieutenant Plunket, Officer Toomey, Officer Gervasi, Captain Walsh and Sergeant Trezza; the Hackensack Police Department; Court Administrator Janice Behnke; Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P.; and the Hackensack Municipal Court.
2 The "Bergen Prosecutor Defendants" include: the Bergen County Prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni and John Doe Members of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Staff.
2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 79 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1273
his allegations of conspiracy ... as it [sic] relates to all these defendants." See PI. Cert., Docket Entry No. 54-1 at 2.
Rule 15(a) provides that "leave [to amend] shall be freely granted when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The decision to grant a motion to amend a pleading rests in the sound discretion of the district court. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1970). Generally, leave to amend should be granted unless there is undue delay or prejudice, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies through previous amendments or futility. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Absent these factors, leave should be "freely given." Id.
Plaintiffs motion to amend has been opposed by Defendants E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc. (jointly) and the Bergen Prosecutor Defendants on the basis of futility. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that none of the Defendants claim that they will be prejudiced in any way by Plaintiffs filing of an amended complaint at this early stage ofthe litigation. Moreover, having considered the futility arguments raised by the two groups of Defendants who have chosen to oppose this motion, the Court finds that such arguments are more appropriately assessed on a motion to dismiss. This is particularly so given the number of defendants in this action and the overlapping nature of the arguments raised in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to amend and the various motions to dismiss currently pending before the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is, therefore, granted. The Second Amended Complaint (filed under Docket Entry No. 54-3) is hereby deemed the operative complaint in this matter.
The motions to dismiss currently pending before the Court all relate to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. The Defendants opposing Plaintiffs motion to amend concede that the Second Amended Complaint - which is now the operative complaint - does contain, at the very least, new factual allegations concerning Plaintiffs § 1983 conspiracy claim, which is asserted against all of the Defendants. The Court has reviewed both complaints and finds that it is not in a position to conclusively detennine whether the new factual allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint materially affect the arguments raised in the currently pending motions to dismiss. In light of the foregoing circumstances, and given Plaintiffs pro se status,3 the Comi finds that the
3See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.C!. 2197, 2200 (2007) ("A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed. ").
3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 79 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1274
more prudent approach is to deny without prejudice the currently pending motions to dismiss (which seek dismissal of the non-operative complaint) and afford Defendants with thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order in which to respond to the Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS on this 12'h day of July, 2010, ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to vacate this Court's April 23, 2010 Order is granted; ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint [Docket Entry No. 54] IS granted; and it is further ORDERED that the document contained in Docket Entry No. 54-3 shall be docketed by the Clerk's Office as the Second Amended Complaint, which is hereby deemed the operative complaint in this matter; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss [Docket Entry Nos. 21, 43, 46, 60 and 61] are denied without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order in which to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOSEL. LINARES,
UNLI~ T/ ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 49 PageID: 1591

DONELL L. PRINCE P.O. Box 1024
Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-1024 (201) 218-0159 or (803) 614-0136 Pro Se Plaintiff

Plaintiff Donell L. Prince
vs. Defendant (s)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY- NEWARK
FILE NO.: 2:09-CV-5429 JUDGE:
CIVIL ACTION SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND JURY DEMANDED

Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Det. W.
Inglima, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Det. A Gutierrez, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Det. A Ferraoili, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Lt. Lee, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Lt. Plunket, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Officer C. Toomey, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city
of Hackensack; and Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Officer J. Gervasi, B.C.I. Division, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, individually and as police officer in Police Department, city of Hackensack; and Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, individually and as police officer in Police
Department, city of Hackensack; and Hackensack Police Department; and John Doe member (s) of Hackensack Police Department; and Court Administrator Janice Behnke, individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court staff; Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P. individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court staff; and Hackensack Municipal Court; and Bergen County Jail in City of Hackensack; and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Jail staff, individually and as members of Bergen County Jail; and E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Psychiatry Unit D1., part of Bergen County Jail, individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center and/or Bergen County Jail staff; and Bergen Regional Medical Center; and John Doe members Bergen Regional Medical Center staff; and E. Fahey, MA.,
Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc.
individually and as member of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. staff; and Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; Bergen County Municipal Division; Bergen County Prosecutor and Prosecutor Ostuni and John Doe
1

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 49 PageID: 1592 member (s) of Bergen County Prosecutor (s) staff, individually and as members of Bergen County Prosecutors office; and Attorney General, State of New Jersey; and John Doe member (s) of N.J. Attorney General staff.
2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 3 of 49 PageID: 1593
Introduction 1. This is an action at law to redress the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to plaintiff (s) by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United states under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arising under the laws and statutes of the state of New Jersey. Wherein defendants individually and/or together conspired and acted in such a way as to deprive plaintiff of civil rights and rights to equal protection under the law. This matter started when four defendant police officers were caught illegally trying to enter/break into my apartment on 5/23, and made unlawful threats to cause imprisonment and 24 hours later carried out threat on 5/24 by making up multiple fictitious stories of incident to have plaintiff first incarcerated incommunicado for mental evaluation, claiming plaintiff had no rights for 19 hours, which got plaintiff committed and later drugged; and thereafter on 5/25 defendants deprive plaintiff of his rights further by the
malicious filing of false criminal charges for 2nd & 3rd degree
crimes, falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted me for these fictitious crimes. Other defendants acted separately and/or in concert which aids, abets and help conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law, in addition other defendants ignored their duties to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Laws of the United states and state
3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 4 of 49 PageID: 1594

of New Jersey for all citizens.

2. (a) Plaintiff spent three months and five days in county jail before I was able to bailout and a total of two years and five months, until the fictitious charges were

dismissed with prejudice on October 25, 2007, by County Municipal Court Judge Roy F. McGeady P.J.M.C.; these defendant police officers and others defendants conduct was willful, reckless, negligent, intentional, with no remorse, these serious crimes and terroristic acts, which caused great harm, physical and mental distress, pain, suffering, humiliation, financial hardship and loss for me and my family, which endangered my life, and indirectly lead to my stepfather Mr. N. Akridge early death, as well plaintiffs continued concerns about my safety and life, because these defendant officers are capable of doing anything to keep cover up what happened to protect themselves from criminal/civil responsibility.

(b) Therefore plaintiff demands trial by jury and request compensatory and punitive damages for all losses, injuries,
known & unknown, when this complaint was filed.

3. (a) The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question)

& 1343, this being an action authorized by law to redress the

deprivation of federal rights under color of law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege,

and immunity secured to plaintiff (s) by the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution of the United States under the Civil Rights

Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 5 of 49 PageID: 1595
(b) The Court has jurisdiction over State claims based on the principles of supplemental jurisdiction, as stated under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and cost, the sum or value of one hundred thousand dollars (100,000.00).
5. Venue is proper in this District Court, wherein most of these events took place in the cities of Hackensack and Paramus in Bergen County, in state of New Jersey, where the plaintiff lived at 15 Lehigh Street Apt. #41 in city of Hackensack and defendants worked in the cities of Hackensack and Paramus.
6. During all times mentioned in his complaint, plaintiff Donell Prince is of full age, and is a citizen of the United States and I now reside in Cliffside Park, New Jersey; and request all mail related to this complaint is to be sent and addressed to Donell L. Prince P.O. Box 1024, Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-1024.
7. At all times material to this complaint, defendants police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, and John Doe member (s) of police department, were employed as police officers at 225 State Street in city of Hackensack, State of New Jersey 07601, and were acting under
5

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 6 of 49 PageID: 1596
the color of their official capacity and their acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of the city of Hackensack, state of New Jersey. Defendants police officers were the servants, agents, and employees of their co-defendant the Hackensack Police Department.
8. At all times mentioned here defendant Hackensack Police Department at 225 state street in city of Hackensack, state of New Jersey 07601, was the employer of defendants police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, and Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242; and provided each of the individual defendants with an official badge and identification card which designated and described its bearer as police officers of said city police department.
9. At all times mentioned here defendant Court Administrator Janice Behnke and Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P. was employed at co-defendant Hackensack Municipal Court at 215 State Street in city of Hackensack New Jersey 07601. Both defendants here were acting under the color of her official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of the city of Hackensack, State of New Jersey.
10. At all times mentioned here defendants Bergen County Jail and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Jail staff, at
6

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 7 of 49 PageID: 1597
South River Street in city of Hackensack New Jersey 07601, was acting under the color of its official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of county of Bergen, State of New Jersey.
11. At all times mentioned here defendant E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Psychiatry Unit 01., part of Bergen County Jail, individually and as employee of co-defendants Bergen Regional Medical Center and/or Bergen County Jail staff. Co-defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center; Gail Pietrsla; Sterling M.D.; Mohammad Mallick M.D.; Puudimamuthxuda M.D.; and John Doe member (s) of staff at 230 East Ridgewood Avenue, Paramus New Jersey 07652, upon information and belief was a willful participant in joint activity with the city, county and state or it agents and is subject to federal court jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
12. At all times mentioned here defendants, E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. individually and as member of co-defendant Care Plus New Jersey Inc. staff at 610-611 Industrial Avenue, Paramus New Jersey 07652, upon information and belief was a willful participant in joint activity with the city, county and state or it agents and is subject to federal court jurisdiction under Title 28 § 1343.
13. During all times mentioned herein, the above individual defendants in paragraphs (7-13) and each of them, separately
7

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 8 of 49 PageID: 1598
and in concert, acted under color and pretense of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usages of the state of New Jersey and the County of Bergen and the city of Hackensack. Each of the individual defendants and each of them, separately and in concert engaged in the illegal conduct, aided, abeted and help concealed this police misconduct hereto mentioned, to the injury of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States.
14. At all times mentioned here defendants, Bergen County Prosecutor, Prosecutor Ostuni and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Prosecutor staff; Bergen County Municipal Division at Justice Center, 10 Main Street in Hackensack New Jersey 07601, was acting under the color of its official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of county of Bergen, and State of New Jersey.
15. At all times mentioned here defendants, Attorney General, State of New Jersey and/or John Doe member (s) of New Jersey Attorney General staff, at PO Box 085 Trenton New Jersey 08625-0085, individually and as members of Attorney General staff, was acting under the color of its official capacity and the acts were performed under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, of State of New Jersey.
16. (a) During all times mentioned herein, the individual 8

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 9 of 49 PageID: 1599
defendants in paragraphs (14-15) and each of them, separately and in concert, acted under color and pretense of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usages of the state of New Jersey and the County of Bergen, Each of the individual defendants and each of them, separately and in concert, engaged in conduct hereto mentioned as it relates to their official indifference to these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by defendants police officers and other defendant charged with up holding the laws, Hackensack Police Department and Hackensack Municipal Court, wherein thier staff obstruct justice and tried to stall, sabotage plaintiffs filling of criminal complaints and any investigation before it got started. while these same groups, continued to try and prosecute and railroad plaintiff for fictitious crimes.
(b) When the Bergen County Prosecutor office and staff, Bergen County Municipal Division and staff, Attorney General office and staff of the State of New Jersey ignore such blatant crimes of, Official Misconduct 2C:30-2; Official deprivation of civil rights 2C:30-6; Pattern of Official Misconduct 2C:30-7; Conspiracy 2C:5-2; Obstruction of Justice; and other crimes related these serious crimes and terroristic acts; and refuse to allow a law abiding citizen to file complaints at their offices, their official indifference sends a clear message that its OK to victimize average citizens and the poor, this indifference aids, abets and help conceals police misconduct,
9

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 10 of 49 PageID: 1600
to the injury of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United states and the laws of the United states as well as State Laws.
17. At this point plaintiff believes its important for the court have some general information related to plaintiff and past problems with some of these defendants, because plaintiff contends this information relates directly to this cause of action and some damages plaintiff is claiming.
General information and past problems 18. I am (50) fifty years old now and at the time of this incident on May 23, 2005, I was a (46) forty -six year old black male who had lived in the town of Hackensack for over (39) thirty-nine years, lived in the same apartment in town for over 22 twenty-two years, had worked at the same job in town for over (17) seventeen years before I got hurt and now have been collecting my Social Security every sense (1995) for permanent disability because of injuries to my cervical, thoracic and
lumber spine from two auto accident from 1991 & 1995. I am still
and have been a law abiding citizen, who's never tried to harm or threaten anyone, and who legally owned firearms every sense (1995), for home protection and target shooting.
19. (a) To put into context what's been going on, I think it's important that you know their was a past history between me and this Police department and Municipal court, dealing with my attempts from June of 1995 through 1999 to have some
10

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 11 of 49 PageID: 1601
Hackensack police officers, medical center paramedics and others in the area held accountable for illegal and unethical conduct, and the covering up of same by others, that revolved around my 1995 auto accident which I was the victume caused by Hackensack Medical Center employees, wherein the paramedic and a police officer decided by just looking at me an seeing that I was black, that I had to be faking injuries because I complained of pain in my neck and back, when in fact I already had injuries to my cervical, thoracic and lumber spine from auto accident from 1991, after first trying to bully and intimidate into not wanting an accident report, the police officer falsified the accident report to blame the accident report on an unknown third party and thereafter the Hackensack Police department and Hackensack Municipal court refused to allow me to file complaints in the matter, I then tried to have them held accountable in local county court, for which I had been warned to back off by Hackensack Internal Affairs Police Caption Smith, ... " or things could happen to me, whether civil, criminal or otherwise, and told that if I was really injured I should only be concerned about my future, and not be interested justice and further stated that he was not threaten me either, that things just happen sometimes" .• (See listed under Ex. A)
(b) Coincidentally some of their threats came true when a my former lawyer intentionally cause the loss of most of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy's in two civil matters entrusted to him, my attorney was Edward
1 1

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 12 of 49 PageID: 1602
G. Johnson Esq., who at time he represented me, I found out later was a municipal appeal attorney, both the matter I was handing myself with the police and others and the attorney handling of insurance PIP benefits matter were being done at the same time. when this attorney made up fictitious court rules and laws, and secretly agree with opposition attorneys to handle my claims differently than the law requires and I instruct him to, which lead to the loss of my medical and income continuation benefits, this attorney actions were not simple mistakes and afterward said attorney told me, ••••. "their was nothing else he could do for me, and that I needed to understand that," things just happen sometime' ••••.••.
(c) Coincidentally at the time of this incident on May 23,2005, I was working on an very important Appeal which needed to be filed to Supreme Court by June 6, 2005, (see attached under exhibits B) I had been trying to get my former lawyer named Edward G. Johnson Esq., who was at that time a County Adjuster and Department Head in Hackensack and three other attorney Joseph Charles Esq., Cyril S. Hodge Esq., and John J. Grossi III, into Court in a civil matter for illegal and/or unethical conduct. Questions of why my former lawyer intentionally cause the loss of over $350,000.00 of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy's in two civil matters entrusted to him, and whether said conduct had some connection with threats made by Hackensack police.
(d) Additionally before the May 23, 2005, incident their 12

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 13 of 49 PageID: 1603
had been other acts related to my horne, off and on while I was trying to get my former attorney into court which I believed was meant to scare me into backing off but I just couldn't prove it, I took steps to protect my apartment, by putting in a hidden camera and combination locks on my doors. All first floor apartment are on top of car garages and police officers were in the garages below my apartment; and for some unknown reason rotten egg other strong odors and fumes would flood only into my bedroom in the middle night on many occasion and then about two weeks before the May 23, 2005 incident someone in the middle of the night fired off five what I believe was blanks shots in the garage below my bedroom, then sped off in a car.
Allegations- illegally trying to enter/break into plaintiff apartment on 5/23/05 and made unlawful threats to cause imprisonment.
20. (a) This started between 9:30 p.m. 10:00 p.m. on the night of 5/23/05, when four (4) plain clothes narcotics Hackensack police officers, named Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez and Det. A Ferraoili, were caught illegally trying to enter/break into my apartment, at my former address, at 15 Lehigh Street Apt.# 41 in Hackensack New Jersey 07601, wherein the police claiming they were chasing and lossed a suspect who had a warrant in the general area and upon returning to their car they saw my door ajar and carne to my apartment out of concern for safety of resident inside said police officers never rang door bell, never knocking on my door
13

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 14 of 49 PageID: 1604
nor announce themselves as police officers, causing a incident and creating a very dangerous situation for all concerned; When plaintiff heard someone trying to enter/break into my apartment, plaintiff stood up and grabbed his legal gun to protect myself and turn on the lights, whoever was breaking in stop and back off, from were plaintiff was standing inside his apartment he could not see who was trying to enter/break in and they could not see plaintiff, the only other thing plaintiff did was peek around the corner of the wall inside his apartment. (see under
exhibits D detailed account of incident on 5/23/05 & 5/24/05
with copies of photographs 1-8 that show and explain same) (b) Two (2) of the four officers, a Sgt. Thomas Aiellos
and another I believe to be Det. w. Inglima, tried to bully,
intimidate and as well made threats before leaving because I dared to stand up them and for my rights, wherein Det. W. Inglima ..•• "threatened to arrest me if I didn't shut-up" •.•...• and thereafter Sgt. Thomas Aiellos stated •••.•• "that I better stop thinking that people or out to get me before I find out what someone out to really get me could do to me" ..••
Allegations- carrying out threats on 5/24/05 Qy having plaintiff first incarcerated incommunicado for mental evaluation.
21. What the police did next clearly was over the top, just to cover-up for the fact that they were caught illegally breaking into my apartment, on the night of May 24, 2005, around 10:00 p.m., police officers Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Plunket,
1 4

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 15 of 49 PageID: 1605
Officer C. Toomey, came back to my home and told me that they needed me to come down to the police station with them to discuss what happened the night before on Monday May 23, 2005, I went willing with the police officer to the police station and was not arrest or in any handcuffs, once we got to the police station they lead me to a cell and asked me to step inside, wherein I asked if lim under arrest for something, and asked for a phone call and a attorney, I was told by the police officers that I was not under arrest so was not entitle to a phone call or an attorney, and over the next (19) nineteen hour at the hospital the police continued to claim that I had no rights, the police claimed that they had a Court Order from the Municipal Court to take me to Bergen Regional Medical Center for an pychiatric evaluation for my on good. This is confirmed by, police department investigation report fill out by P.O. T. Gervasi #0512683, stating this was aid, I was victume, not under arrest, no complaint signed, between the hours of (22:10) 10:10 p.m. Tuesday night 5/24/05 until (15:00) 3:00 p.m. Wednesday 5/25/05;
see listed under exhibits E as (e-1). 22. (a) What I learned while I was at the emergency room in Bergen Regional Medical Center and from hospital records later was that Lt. Lee from the Hackensack Police Department had called, a psychiatric hot-line screener at Care Plus of New Jersey Inc., and Bergen Regional Medical Center Psychiatry Unit and told them; that an incident occurred with me on May 24, 2005 ..•... "wherein the police were responding to a domestic
15

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 16 of 49 PageID: 1606
violence call at my apartment building, home and claimed that, I Donell L. Prince was sitting in my home with the door open, and with a loaded and cocked gun in my hand, pulled gun on police officers and threatened to kill the police officers, and then I put gun to my own head threatening to kill myself, also claiming that police officers struggled with me and took away loaded and cocked gun, also claimed that in cell at the station I talked to myself, and I was delusional and fighting imaginary people, and that I claimed that the police and others were plotting against me, that I had my refrigerator chained up while I was home" .•...•• (see listed exhibits F)
(b) Upon information and belief this fictitious story was told to get the first doctor I saw at Psychiatry Unit and Care Plus psychiatry screener to believe, assume and quickly diagnose that I was homicidal, suicidal, psychotic, delusional and paranoid. What the police did here clearly was done to try to destroy my credibility, the police wanted this quick diagnose and wanted me released back into their custody, if that had happened the police would have been able to do anything they wanted to me and no one question them.
(c) Fortunately for me the head doctor in charge of the emergency room heard what was going on, and intervened on my behalf, after I told him what was go on, he decided to play it safe and try to contacted my family and my legal plan attorney to let them know what was happening, and would not release me back into police custody, the head doctor kept me for further
16

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 17 of 49 PageID: 1607
evaluation. I was in the emergency room at hospital between 10:45 p.m. Tuesday night May 24, 2005 until 7:15 p.m. Wednesday evening May 25, 2005, hand cuffed to bed and under police guard. My sister Margo Prince came to emergency room with her friend and came into room I was being held in, when I called out her name, the police officer moved toward them and told them they could see me, but I yelled out and told her what was going on before officer got them out of the room, said officer came back into room where I was and pulled out his cell phone and called someone, lover heard him say, ........ there some woman hear claiming to be the sister of Donell Prince, also said what do we do now, we didn't know he had family in the area ......... .
Allegations- carrying out threats on 5/25/05 by the
malicious filing of false criminal charges for 2nd & 3rd degree
crimes, falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted me for these fictitious crimes.
23. (a) Plaintiff contends that whatever the police had plan for me changed after the emergency room head doctor intervened and my sister Margo Prince came to emergency room. The head doctor who had intervened on my behalf advised the police officer guarding me that they were going to keep me for further evaluation, and that sense I had not been charged with any crimes they were going to transfer me to the third floor, for my further evaluation which wasn't under lockdown and advised that if the police wanted me under lock down they would have to charge me with a crime, and then I could be placed in D-1
17

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 18 of 49 PageID: 1608
Forensic Psychiatry Unit, for further evaluation, this unit is part of Bergen County Jail at the hospital. The (John Doe) police officer guarding me contacted police station and thereafter spoke to head emergency room doctor and advised him that they were gOing to charge me with crimes and that the police station would fax over a copy of charge soon; thereafter on May 25, 2005, around 5:00 p.m. according to records/documents
I was charged with Second & Third degree crimes, and $50,000.00
bail set by judge Dinice, and I was booked in at Bergen county jail D1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit at Bergen Regional Medical Center, This is confirmed when you look at (exhibit E) the police department investigation report fill out by P.O. T. Gervasi #0512683 as stated above, by three page printout of bergen county jail records, booking #D-38609, (see exhibit G), and by D1 Forensic (Joh Doe) staff who recorded in their records same (see exhibit F-a); after I was processed in at D1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit I was not allowed any visitors or mail while I was there, I found out later what these charges were from the public defender on July 1, 2005 at the main county jail building and thereafter got a print out sheet from county jail law library.
(b) What I later learned from police records was that police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, and P.O. J. Gervasi., ( DCI Div), had made up a different fictitious story of incident than what was told to
18

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 19 of 49 PageID: 1609

Care Plus of New Jersey Inc., and Bergen Regional Medical Center
Psychiatry Unit to get me charging me with Second & Third degree

crimes, .... " by claiming they were chasing and lossed a suspect who had a warrant in the area and on their way back to their car saw my door ajar and that they came to apartment out of concern for safety of resident inside and knocked on my door

and announced themselves as police officers, and claimed that

I

open

my

doo~ I

and

pointed

a

gun

at

them

on

the

night

of

May

23, 2005," ...•• but didn't arrest me or report crimes. Police

department investigation report fill out by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos

#0512616 & #0512629 and three page letter by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos

to police chief Zisa about what he claimed happened on Monday

and Tuesday nights of the 5/23/05 & 5/24/05. (see exhibits H)

(c) Upon plaintiff belief that these arrest records warrant/complaint were back date to 5/24/05, by Sgt. Thomas

Aiellos, Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P. and others to cover up what happened during the first (19) nineteen hour I was in police custody at the hospital, were the police

continued to claim I was not under arrest, that I had no rights, was not entitle to a phone call or an attorney, that they had a Court Order from the Municipal Court to do this.

(d) In this second fictitious story of incident told by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, and other officers, claiming I committed Second & Third degree crimes involving a gun against the police

on Monday 5/23/05 at about 8:50 p.m., but they didn't arrest

me, nor reported a crime and didn't take gun because I had no 19

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 20 of 49 PageID: 1610
violent history according to computer check, but instead continued to look for a suspect who they were chasing and lossed which had warrants, this suspect was Terrence Bease and had warrants related to shoplifting charges, (see exhibits I), the
police department investigation report fill out by Det. w.
Inglima #0512530 and police department arrest and pedigree sheet, which show Terrence Bease was arrested on Monday 5/23/05 at around 9:35 p.m., at 414 Essex street in Hackensack these record were not turn over until July 31, 2007; for over two years the police claimed Terrence Bease was a very dangerous criminal and that was their justification to come to my home, out of concern for the safety of the resident(s), these records shows that not to be true, and that Terrence Bease was arrested (6) six blocks up over a hill from plaintiff apartment building and was under arrest before they came to my apartment. Its also important to note that Sgt. Thomas Aiellos change the story again in testimony in court on September 13, 2007, now claiming •... "the incident at my apartment happened at 7:00 p.m., and they didn't arrest me because women and children were out side and they didn't want to scare and traumatize them" •.••••..•
(e) While Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, investigation reports. #0512616 & #0512629, and three page letter to Police Chief Zisa claims (see exhibits H) he reported the crimes at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday 5/24/05 that had occurred on Monday 5/23/05, and thereafter file complaint and got warrant and then I was arrested on said warrant at 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday 5/24/05, read me my
20

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 21 of 49 PageID: 1611
rights, was taken to police station and given copies of complaint and I was booked and processed by P.O. J. Gervasi., ( DCI Div)
(f) Both the Bergen County Prosecutor's office copy and defendant copy of complaint/warrant states I was arrested on
5/25/05. (see exhibits J & see G). I wasn't given the defendants
green copy of complaint/warrant until April 5, 2006 in hackensack municipal court, this happened after Caption Smith came into the court room and the judge asked him to hand plaintiff the green defendants copy of original charge sheet, this was the same former Internal Affairs Caption Smith that had made past threats as stated above in paragraph the fact that the municipal court still had my defendants copy of complaint/warrant on April 5, 2006, over (10) ten months after the police claimed they gave it to me, tells all, the other inmates who had been arrested on complaint/warrant and booked had their green defendants copy explaining the charges and bail, I was the only inmate who didn't have his copy.
(g) When you look at Sgt. Thomas Aiellos investigation
reports #0512616 & #0512629 and three page letter to Police
Chief Zisa, how can the Sgt. Thomas Aiellos #0512616 report talk about things that has not happened yet i.e. this document was claimed filled out 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday 5/24/05, before complaint/warrant was issued so how can he claim a complaint was signed, claim I arrested at that time, also states "for further see case report", two of these things happened (4 to 5) hours later, in addition in the three page letter to Police
21

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 22 of 49 PageID: 1612
Chief Zisa, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos is talking about something that happened on 5/25/05 where he states that II all evidence tagged, sealed, photographed and turn over to Det. P. Carroll (Detective Division) on 5/25/05 at 1630 hours." also claims that (" actor was processed & photograph by P.O. J. Gervasi- B.C.I. Division), when you look at the Arrest and Pedigree form at bottom where it states processed by, it's clear that another officer started to sign this form and than P.O. Gervasi name was written on top of same. (see exhibits H)
(h) Plaintiff contends that defendants police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, and John Doe member (s) of police department, were willful participant in the conspiracy to maliciously bring false charges and/or maliciously prosecute plaintiff for these fictitious crimes, to carry out past/present threats defendants acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by members of hackensack police department.
As it relates to; defendants E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; and Care Plus New Jersey Inc.
24. (a) Based on, after I bailed out of county jail, my attorney and I tried to get all the important notes/records
22

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 23 of 49 PageID: 1613
of statements taken from plaintiff and defendants police officers
on May 24 & 25 2005 by E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric
Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc., and was told by Care Plus New Jersey Inc., that E. Fahey, MA., Manager/psychiatric Screener, no longer worked for them and the only records in the file is a summary/final report and that no other record were saved, records required by law to be saved, somehow got los sed or destroyed, violating the law pursuant to 2C:21-4.1. Purposeful destruction, alteration or falsification of record
relatin~ to ~ of medical 2E surgical 2E podiatric patient
in order to deceive 2E mislead; When E. Fahey, interviewed me
on 5/25, plaintiff made sure she took down my statement accurately and even read my statement, and she assured me that the notes/records would be saved. (b) Instead of the record/notes showing my statements that the police tried to illegally enter my apartment and made threats the night before on 5/23 and then came back on 5/24, and was claiming that they had a Court Order from defendant Hackensack Municipal Court to take me to defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center for an pychiatric evaluation for my on good, and while there over the next (19) nineteen hour at the hospital the police continued to claim that plaintiff was not under arrest and had no rights, and statements plaintiff made about past problems with police and other statements answering here questions in context;
(c) Instead of the record/notes showing the first fictitious 23

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 24 of 49 PageID: 1614

story created by the police as to what happened at plaintiff

apartment; wherein Hackensack police Lt. Lee had called, the

psychiatric hot-line screener at Care Plus of New Jersey Inc.,

on 5/24 and told them that an incident occurred with plaintiff

on May 24, 2005 ..•.•• " wherein the police were responding to

a domestic violence call at plaintiffs apartment building, home

and claimed that, I Donell L. Prince was sitting in my home

with the door open, and with a loaded and cocked gun in my hand,

pulled gun on police officers and threatened to kill the police

officers, and then I put gun to my own head threatening to kill

myself, also claiming that police officers struggled with me

and took away loaded and cocked gun, also claimed that in cell

at the station I talked to myself, and I was delusional and

fighting imaginary people, and that I claimed that the police

and others were plotting against me, that I had my refrigerator

chained up while I was horne" •...... (see listed exhibits F)

(d) After plaintiffs reading of summary/final report, some

of plaintiffs statements had been misrepresented, and/or

falsified, by defendant, wherein E. Fahey, states that plaintiff

told here on the night of 5/24/05 " ..•..•. plaintiff advised

that the police came back to his home and told plaintiff they

decided to charge plaintiff for pOinting a gun, as it could

have been dangerous for the police, and that plaintiff argued

with the police about this ..... , also claimed that plaintiff

told her that plaintiff was more concerned that the super of

his apartment building would put something in his food, like

poison •..• etc.

24

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 25 of 49 PageID: 1615

(e)

Plaintiff contends the only reason these important

notes/records was lost or destroyed was to protect themselves,

and/or the police from criminal/civil responsibility and to

protect the system for which they are part of, and to justify

involuntary committing plaintiff based on their assumptions

of facts, that I had to have done what the police claimed.

(f) When defendants E. Fahey, MA., Manager/Psychiatric Screener

of Care Plus New Jersey Inc.; and Care Plus New Jersey Inc.,

coincidentally lost or destroyed these important notes/records

showing what plaintiff actual statements were that night and showing the first fictitious story created by the police and then purposefully altered and falsified plaintiff statements

in order to deceive and mislead and as well incorporated the

second fictitious story created by the police as to what happened

at my apartment into these falsification, these defendants became

a willful participant in the conspiracy to maliciously bring false charges and maliciously prosecute plaintiff for these

fictitious crimes, defendants acted separately or in concert

which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious

crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by members of hackensack police department.

As it relates to; defendants E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Psychiatry Unit D1, Bergen Regional Medical Center; and John Doe members of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff;

25. (a) While in D-1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit, which 25

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 26 of 49 PageID: 1616
was part of Bergen County jail at hospital. While Dr. Schiffman and other staff claimed that they were going to get the police reports, to find out who's version of events were true mine or the Hackensack police, to get to the truth to properly evaluate me, they seem to be just trying to scrutinize everything I did and said to justify the first emergency room doctor assumptions and quick diagnose, based on lies told by defendant police officers, that plaintiff was homicidal, suicidal, psychotic, delusional and paranoid, at first the medical staff tried to force anti-psychotic drugs on me, claiming that the first emergency room doctor had ordered them, they did this by refusing to give me other medication I normally took at horne before I was brought there, unless I took psychiatry drugs as well (i.e. medications for blood pressure, for stomach problems, for injuries to my cervical, thoracic and lumber spine). the staff later started complying with the medical centers on rules and regulations related to patient/inmate bill of rights, concerning medical care and the right to know what all medication are for, to refuse medications and the right to read name of medication and see same taking out of individual packages, the only funny part about this was that some of the staff tried to claim I was being paranoid because I wouldn't trust them with my medication after what they did. (b) After the first few days Dr. defendant E. Schiffman carne to plaintiff and stated she had not been able to get the police records because of the holiday to properly evaluate me, she
26

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 27 of 49 PageID: 1617
claimed they could only keep me there at 0-1 Forensic Psychiatry Unit for a few days, and asked me to do a voluntary committal for a few more days to give her the time to get the police records and do a proper evaluation, I agreed to try an protect myself from what every the police were trying to do, it would give me time to get an attorney and let family know what was going on, but after ten days Dr. Schiffman continued to claim she was having problems getting records, the staff then tried to get me to sign another voluntary committal and I refused. Plaintiff later found out why defendant E. Schiffman and cO-defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center flat outright lied to plaintiff to get plaintiff to do a voluntary committal, these defendants were illegally billing my Medicare for my stay there and had billed over 25,000.00 dollars, committing Medicare fraud, defendants seemed to care more about defrauding my Medicare then getting to the truth; (c) On June 13 t005, plaintiff was sent to the Bergen County Jail in Hackensack, after a meeting between defendant Dr. E. Schiffman and her supervisor from co-defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center, this meeting took place about a half hour after plaintiff overheard a conversation between Dr. Schiffman and some staff while I was coming out of one of the rear bathrooms at, Forensic Unit 01, wherein defendant E. Schiffman stated that •..•... "it turned out the inmate Prince was telling the truth that he was set up, but the bottom line is that nobody was going to take his word over the polices and that if he wasn't
27

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 28 of 49 PageID: 1618
going to do something before he mite after this." .•..••.• (d) Based on, after I bailed out of county jail, my attorney and I tried to get all the important notes/records of statements taken on May 24, 2005 and thereafter, fortunately all these records were saved as required by law, by the medical center and show what plaintiff statements were. So when defendant E. Schiffman, M.D., Resident in Psychiatry, of Bergen Regional Medical Center, Forensic Unit 01; intentionally misrepresent and falsified information in her final summary/report as relates to what I told her and defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center at hospital, which violated the law pursuant to 2C:21-4.1. Purposeful destruction, alteration or falsification of record relating to care of medical or surgical or podiatric patient in order to deceive or mislead; These hospital records clearly show that plaintiff statement were; •..••• "that plaintiff grabbed his legal gun to protect myself because someone was breaking into my horne" ••.••. Instead Dr. E. Schiffman, claims that I told her that, •••. " plaintiff pulled and pointed a gun at intruders/police officers, but I didn't know who they were police" ....•• and were she state •••.•• "he had some insight and fair judgment, wherein that probably it wasn't a good idea to point a gun at the police although, as he said, he did not know it was the police when they entered his apartment" •••..•• (e) Plaintiff contends that defendants E. Schiffman, M.D.; Bergen Regional Medical Center; and John Doe member (s) of Bergen Regional Medical Center staff; intentionally misrepresent and
28

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 29 of 49 PageID: 1619
falsified information in her final summary/report to protect themselves, and/or the police from criminal/civil responsibility and to protect the system for which they are part of. When these defendants purposefully altered and falsified plaintiff statements in order to deceive and mislead and as well incorporated the second fictitious story created by the police as to what happened at my apartment into these falsification, these defendants became a willful participant in the conspiracy to maliciously bring false charges and maliciously prosecute plaintiff for these fictitious crimes, defendants acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by members of hackensack police department. (f) When Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center, and defendants John Doe members staff takes part in illegal conduct such as defrauding plaintiff Medicare, falsified information in records, they send a clear message to there employee as it relates its customs and policy's, that its ok to violate plaintiff rights, with explicit or tacit approval of defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center.
As it relates to; Bergen County Jail and defendants John Doe members of Bergen County Jail medical staff and/or other staff.
26. (a) While at Bergen County Jail in Hackensack, at first I didn't have any problems with my medications there, medication was given dissolved in juice, I was getting only
29

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 30 of 49 PageID: 1620
medication for blood pressure and stomach problems in the morning and two medications for neuropathic pain and to help me sleep, to help deal with problems related to injuries to my cervical, thoracic and lumber spine in the evening. than someone at the Bergen County Jail ordered and started putting anti-psychotic drug in my medls at first smaller doses and than larger ones and at first weekday medical staff lied about, I started having a lot of problems after taking medls my heart would start racing bad, my blood pressure would go up, I would get very dizzy and almost pass out, my mouth and throat would numb up and I would start to gag, and I felt short of breath, get bad headaches, couldnlt think or focus clearly and would get pain in my kidney area. When I asked the regular weekly nurse again about any changes from the two medls, and this time she claimed that I have always been taking anti-psychotic drugs as part of my evening medls, at this point I refused to take any medls dissolved in juice and then weekday medical staff tried to force anti-psychotic drugs on me, they did this by refusing to give me my regular medication. (b) Plaintiff found out the truth from the older black weekend nurse who told me that someone, she didnlt know who wrote a prescription order for the anti-psychotic drug called Seroquel on August 5, 2005, to be given to me, said nurse told me I would have to talk to doctors to get further information about this, I tried to find out who order this anti-psychotic drug and why, because I had not done anything, the doctors wouldnlt talk to
30

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 31 of 49 PageID: 1621
me and ignored my sick call slips related to same after that. in addition while at bergen county jail the medical staff ignored my sick call slips for two weeks related to me losing a lot of blood in my stool, additionally the bergen county jail refused to turn over the record from plaintiff stay at jail, first to public defender office as was told to me by attorney and than later refused to turn records over to plaintiff (c) Plaintiff contends that when defendants Bergen County Jail and defendants John Doe members of Bergen County Jail medical staff and/or other staff, tried to seriously harm plaintiff with drugs and other conduct, these defendants became a willful participant in conspiracy, these defendants acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and/or conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by members of hackensack police department. Plaintiff contends this base on conversation between two people plaintiff believes were part of the medical staff, a white female and white male with full beard standing off to the side of the inmates line to get medications, the female told the male " ••• its the guy with the gray streak in his hair and beard, the male stated so all these good people could loss everything because of him, we see about that" ••.... sense plaintiff was the only one in line with this gray streak in his hair and beard, it is plaintiff belief they were talking about plaintiff and not to long after, this conversation someone started drugging plaintiff.
31

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 32 of 49 PageID: 1622
(d) In addition the plaintiff still dose not know all of what happened to me at the bergen county jail, as the defendant has refused to turn over records from the beginning, plaintiff believes their still maybe some injuries and damages by defendants not known at this time, this is based on a conversation plaintiff overheard from two police officer, •••••• "when one stated that plaintiff mite have been able to bail out, but that I was being destroyed from the inside and didn't know it" .••••.•• ,
As it relates to defendants Prosecutor office and John Doe members of staff.
27. (a) After bailing out jail on August 30, 2005 I collected what records/documents I could and contacted by letter dated October 25, 2005, the Attorney General Office about this matter, detailing attempts to prosecute me for fictitious crimes, their reference #2005-8976, and thereafter when plaintiff went to Trenton, February 22, 2007, with my sister and mother, the Attorney General Office told plaintiff they contacted Prosecutor office and forwarded my letter to them in November 2005, also plaintiff sent another letter to Attorney General Office dated February 26, 2007. (see exhibits K)
(b) On November 15, 2005, Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni & Prosecutor office downgraded charges and remand back to Hackensack Municipal Court, instead of throwing out the fictitious crimes, change from (N.J.S.2C:12-1b(9) aggravated assault on police officer to 2C:12-1A(3) simple assault
32

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 33 of 49 PageID: 1623
disorderly and from (N.J.S. 2C:39-4a) possession of weapon for illegal purpose to 2C:33-2A(2) creates dangerous condition; (see exhibits L)
(c) After plaintiff went to Trenton, February 22, 2007, went to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to try and file criminal complaints because of serious crimes and attempts to cover up same by a number of Hackensack Police officers and others with the potential involvement of Hackensack Municipal Court staff in same. I was told by two investigators that they had not heard from Attorney General Office in this matter and the downgraded charges were based on their investigation, I was not allowed to file said criminal complaints at the Prosecutor's Office and same would have to be filed at the Hackensack Municipal Court, I was also told that it could take up to (5) five years to investigate my complaint against the police when they get it.
(d) After trying to file complaints at Hackensack Municipal Court, plaintiff thereafter went to the Bergen County Administrative offices for the Municipal Courts to complain about what occurred at the Hackensack Municipal Court, and see if I could file complaints there, they said no but stated they would call the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to see if they would allow me to file criminal complaints there, given what happened at Hackensack Municipal Court, but they stated the Prosecutor's office said no.
(e) Plaintiff contends that when defendants Bergen County 33

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 34 of 49 PageID: 1624
Prosecutor, Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni and defendants John Doe members of Bergen County Prosecutor's Office staff and/or investigators, these defendants became a willful participant in the conspiracy to maliciously bring false charges and/or maliciously prosecute plaintiff for these fictitious crimes, to protect the police and other involved from criminal/civil responsibility and to protect the system for which they are part of, defendants acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by members of hackensack police department.
(f) Plaintiff statement in point (e) above is based on plaintiff conversation with the two investigators talked about in point (c) above, wherein plaintiff was lied to when he was told by two investigators for the prosecutor office that they had not heard from Attorney General Office (point (a) above), in this matter and the downgraded charges were based on their investigation, these two investigators, one a black male, former Englewood N.J. police officer and the other a white female. The former Englewood police officer did all the talking, after plaintiff explained he wanted to file criminal complaints against Hackensack Police officers, with the potential involvement of Hackensack Municipal Court staff in crimes, the former Englewood police officer started talking about some of the information the plaintiff had put into the letter to the Attorney General Office as it related to plaintiff former
34

-~------

- ---

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 35 of 49 PageID: 1625
lawyer and his intentional loss of plaintiff benefits, when plaintiff questioned what this had to do with filling criminal complaints, asked why the Prosecutor office downgraded charges related to fictitious crimes, and question whether they had received a copy of my letter to Attorney General Office, the investigator answered as stated in point (c) above and instructed the plaintiff to leave the prosecutor office and building rite away.
As it relates to defendants Hackensack Municipal Court, Administrator Janice Behnke, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242; John Doe member (s) of police department and Hackensack Police Department.
28. (a) On the following dates of, September 12, 15, 18, 2006, claimant Donell L. Prince along with mother Myrna Akridge (12,15,18) and sister Margo Prince (12), came to the Hackensack Municipal Court and spoke to Court Administrator Janice Behnke to fill some criminal complaints pursuant State of New Jersey Municipal Court Rules (7:2-1 )" ••.. which requires the municipal court administrator or deputy administrator shall accept for filling every complaint made by any person" ••• ; Plaintiff had a copy of Rule (7:2-1) with me because of a past problem with municipal court administrator and police department trying to fill a past complaint against a city police officer wherein court administrator Janice Behnke claimed I wasn't allowed to fill complaints against police there, as did the police department, plaintiff had to contact the Attorney general
35

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 36 of 49 PageID: 1626
office and the Bergen County Municipal Court administrator to try and deal with this.
(b) Plaintiff brought with him a five page summary of the issue and people involved who I wanted to file complaints because of serious crimes and attempts to cover same by a number of Hackensack Police officers and others with the potential involvement of Hackensack Municipal Court staff in same. After reviewing five page summary, instead of allowing me to fill criminal complaints pursuant to state court rule (7:2-1), Court administr~tor claimed I wasn't allowed to fill complaints until after I get police reports from police department concerning the issues. thereafter at police department after reviewing and copying my five page summary, some stalling and the filling out of an one page Internal Affairs report by the john doe lieutenant on duty at desk, said Court administrator Janice Behnke came to police department and spoke to supervising officers and left, plaintiff was told by the lieutenant that the Court administrator wanted the matter handled by sending it through Internal Affairs first before any complaint would be allowed to be filled. Plaintiff was told by john doe lieutenant plaintiff would have to contact Capt. Walsh in charge of Internal Affairs who wasn't in then.
(c) Thereafter police officers Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge #242, John Doe member (s) of police department; intentionally misrepresenting and/or changed of information from plaintiff statement of what occurred in this
36

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 37 of 49 PageID: 1627
investigative reports they claimed I need to file criminal complaint, to try an create credibility issues with my claims, and in doing so;
(d) Plaintiff contends that members of police department and municipal court staff obstruct justice and tried to stall, sabotage my filling of criminal complaints and any investigation before it got started as it related to continued attempts to keep cover up and control the outcome of this matter. these defendants became a willful participant in the conspiracy to maliciously bring false charges and/or maliciously prosecute plaintiff for these fictitious crimes, to protect the police and other involved from criminal/civil responsibility and to protect the system for which they are part of, defendants acted separately or in concert which aids, abets and help commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law by members of hackensack police department.
(e) Defendant hackensack police department customs and policy's lead to the deprivation of plaintiffs constitutional rights, these same customs and policy's encouraged all defendant police officers to believe that they could violate the constitutional rights, of the plaintiff with impunity and with explicit or tacit approval of defendant hackensack police department and city of Hackensack
As it relates to defendants Attorney General Office, john doe members Attorney General staff and Bergen County Municipal Division and staff ;
37
....

-------------------------------------------------Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 38 of 49 PageID: 1628
29. (a) On February 22, 2007, I Donell L. Prince along with mother Myrna Akridge and sister Margo Prince, came to the Department of Law and Public Safety to file a complaint and find out why my letter dated October 25, 2005 was not responded to, We were told by an investigator, my letter dated October 25, 2005 was received, and gave plaintiff reference #2005-8976 for same, and a copy was sent to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, and that I couldn't file a complaint as it related to the Bergen County Prosecutor's handling of these matters concerning the Hackensack Police Department and Hackensack Municipal Court and plaintiff would have to put my concerns in writing, letter dated February 26, 2007, was sent to Attorney General Office, by plaintiff and Attorney General Office sent a letter in response, (see exhibits under K) basically stating they are unable to investigate matters that are the responsibility of another law enforcement agency, such as municipal police departments and county prosecutor's office.
(b) After trying to file complaints at Hackensack Municipal Court, plaintiff thereafter went to the Bergen County Administrative offices for the Municipal Courts to complain about what occurred at the Hackensack Municipal Court, and see if I could file complaints there, they said no but stated they would call the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to see if they would allow me to file criminal complaints there, given what happened at Hackensack Municipal Court, but they stated the Prosecutor's office said no.
38

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 39 of 49 PageID: 1629
30 (a) During all times mentioned herein, the individual
defendants in paragraphs (27 & 29), Bergen County Prosecutor's
Office, Bergen County Municipal Division and Attorney General Office, are charged by state laws with the protection of the public, the enforcement of provisions of Constitution, the Civil Rights Laws, the criminal laws through policing and prosecution and/or administrative responsibility over city municipal courts and their staff to ensure the high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of these court, as well as the adherence to applicable rules, polices and directives of the Supreme Court, including the code of conduct for judiciary employees and to address, investigate the complaints, concerns from the public. These defendants have a duty to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Laws of the United States and State of New Jersey for all citizens.
(b) When the Bergen County Prosecutor office and staff, Bergen County Municipal Division and staff, Attorney General office and staff of the State of New Jersey, ignore such blatant crimes of, Official Misconduct 2C:30-2; Official deprivation of civil rights 2C:30-6; Pattern of Official Misconduct 2C:30-7; Conspiracy 2C:S-2; Obstruction of Justice; 2C:21-4.1. Purposeful destruction, alteration or falsification of record relating to care of medical or surgical or podiatric patient in order to deceive or mislead, etc.; and then these defendants refuse to allow a law abiding citizen to file complaints at their
39

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 40 of 49 PageID: 1630
offices nor investigate these crime, their official indifference sends a clear message that its OK to violate the constitutional right of the plaintiff and victimize all average citizens and the poor with impunity and with these defendants explicit or tacit approval, this indifference aids, abets and help conceals police misconduct, to the injury of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United states and state laws.
Allegations as to Denial of Civil Rights: 31. Each of the individual defendants, separately and in concert, acted wilfully, knowingly, and purposefully with the specific intent to deprive plaintiff of his rights to: a) be safe in his homes with out police illegally trying to enter/break in. b) be free from unlawful intimidation, threats to cause imprisonment and retaliation from police officers when we stand up for our rights. c) freedom from illegal seizure of his person, from illegal detention, imprisonment and from being held incommunicado for mental evaluation based on fictitious crimes which got plaintiff committed and later drugged. d) freedom from malicious filing of false criminal charges
for 2nd & 3rd degree crimes, falsely arrested and maliciously
prosecuted for these fictitious crimes. e) every citizens rights to equal protection under the
• l-i 0

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 41 of 49 PageID: 1631
law as guaranteed by state and Federal Laws, should not be ignored by the people charged with enforcing the laws whether at the city, county or state level.
All of these rights are secured to plaintiff by the provision of the due process clause of the Fifth and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United states
under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and by Title 18
United states Code § 245 (1968). Allegations alleging Conspiracy:
32. (a) Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 17-31 of the claim above, all these defendants conspired to commit and conceals these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law, they acted separately and/or in concert which aids, abets the maliciously prosecution of plaintiff for fictitious crimes.
(b) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Hackensack police department; John Doe member (s) of police department, police officers, Sgt. Thomas Aiellos badge #221, Det. W. Inglima, Det. A Gutierrez, Oet. A Ferraoili, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, Sgt. A. Trezza, Captain Walsh, Hackensack Municipal Court, and John Doe member (s) of court staff; were willful participant in the conspiracy to carry out past/present threats, Wherein plaintiff had been warned and threatened in the past to back off by Hackensack Internal Affairs Police Caption Smith, ... " or things could happen to me, whether civil,
.. 4\

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 42 of 49 PageID: 1632
criminal or otherwise, and told that if I was really injured I should only be concerned about my future, and not be interested justice and further stated that he was not threaten me either, that things just happen sometimes" •• and then present threats, wherein Det. W. Inglima ..•• "threatened to arrest me if I didn't shut-up" ...•..• and thereafter Sgt. Thomas Aiellos stated ..••.. "that I better stop thinking that people or out to get me before I find out what someone out to really get me could do to me" ••.• , these defendants have carried out each and every threat, and tried to ruin, destroy me and make an example of me in retaliation for plaintiff standing up to them and standing for his rights. civil, wherein in the past plaintiff was pursuing civil case against Police department, police officers, Municipal court and others dealing for illegal and unethical conduct, at time of threats, and two others civil matters dealing with insurance policy payments and accident liability. (a) in insurance policy payments matter my former hackensack lawyer, Edward G. Johnson Esq., intentionally cause the loss of most of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy's, said attorney, plaintiff found out later was a municipal appeal attorney, this attorney made up fictitious court rules and laws, and secretly agree with opposition attorneys to handle my claims differently than the law requires and plaintiff instruct him to, which lead to the loss of my
... 1.12-

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 43 of 49 PageID: 1633
benefits, which caused problems pursuing the past case against hackensack police department and others, than coincidentally at the time of this incident on May 23,2005, plaintiff was working on an very important Appeal which needed to be filed to Supreme Court by June 6, 2005, trying to get my former lawyer named Edward G. Johnson Esq., into court for the loss of my benefits, said attorney now was a County Adjuster and Department Head in Hackensack.
This lawyers past conduct kept plaintiff from getting hackensack police department and others into court and then the police present conduct kept plaintiff from getting lawyer into court. (b) in the accident liability civil matter plaintiff hired another hackensack lawyer named Steven Fortunenotto, who sought after taking over said case, plaintiff had to fire lawyer because of some unethical conduct, it turned out he was a personal friend of the police chief of hackensack, Ken Zisa. criminal which lead to plaintiff being falsely arrested, jailed, falsely charges and maliciously prosecuted for fictitious crimes. otherwise, which lead to plaintiff being held in incommunicado for mental evaluation based on fictitious crimes, which got plaintiff committed and drugged, denied equal protection under the law, los sed apartment, los sed rental assistance, caused great harm, physical and mental distress, pain, suffering, humiliation,

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 44 of 49 PageID: 1634
financial hardship and loss, ruined credit, lossed $5,000.00 bail, lossed $5,000.00 legal fees and their conduct endangered plaintiff life, etc.
(c) The individual violation of defendants, and each of
them, in violation of Title 42 United states Code § 1983
did conspire separately and/or between themselves and with other person or persons, for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice in the state of New Jersey, and with intent to deny to plaintiff Donell Prince, the equal protection of the laws to injure plaintiff from lawfully attempting to obtain his rights under the Constitution of U.S., to equal protection under the laws.
(d) In furtherance of the object of said conspiracy, all of these defendants did do or cause to be done the acts set forth in paragraphs 17-32 of claims in complaint above in violation of Title 42 United states Code § 1983, when people charged with enforcing the laws, feel that the laws don't apply to them and that we average citizens have no rights unless they decide we do, then clearly there has been break down of the rule of law, as in this case, at the city, county and state level, and this has lead to a systemic and a series of continual violation of plaintiffs rights under the color of law, these defendants have committed serious crimes and committed terroristic acts against plaintiff, and/or cover up and concealed said crimes in violation of State laws and/or federal laws; and/or ignore their charged duties to protect the public and

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 45 of 49 PageID: 1635
enforce the laws at the state and federal level for all citizens; and in doing so did thereby injure plaintiff Donell L. Prince in his person, and deprive him of having and exercising his rights and privileges under the Constitution and laws of the United states and the Constitution and laws of the state of New Jersey.
Allegations as to Damages: 33. (a) As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the individual defendants, and each of them, separately and/or in concert caused plaintiff Donell Prince to suffer greatly when he was committed and drugged for fictitious crimes and spent three months and five days in county jail before I was able to bailout and a total of two years and five months, until the fictitious charges were dismissed with prejudice on October 25, 2007, by County Municipal Court Judge Roy F. McGeady P.J.M.C.; these defendant police officers and others defendants conduct was willful, reckless, negligent, intentional, with no remorse, these serious crimes and terroristic acts, which caused great harm, physical and mental distress, pain, suffering, humiliation, financial hardship, credit problems and loss for me and my family, which endangered my life as well plaintiffs continued concerns about my safety, because plaintiff knows first hand what some of these defendant officers are capable of doing. (b) Plaintiff was forced to incur substantial obligations for attorneys fees, and other expenses in the defense of himself

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 46 of 49 PageID: 1636
against fictitious charges and the unfounded and unwarranted prosecution by defendants, which has been a serious burden to plaintiff and his family, therefore plaintiff demands trial by jury and request compensatory and punitive damages for all
losses, injuries, known & unknown, when this complaint was filed,
caused by these defendants acts, and/or any injury concealed by these defendants.
(c) Plaintiff pleads special damages for the loss of the civil action I was not able to pursue because of these defendants conduct, punitive damages, all out-of-pocket expense for this action, interest, if attorney is hired, all attorney fees.
Plaintiff bail was $5,000.00; legal expenses at about $5,000.00; loss of rent assistance at around $500.00 month; financial hardship, ruin credit, court judgments @ about $4000.00; and all expense incurred by plaintiff family related to this matter, in addition to my Appeal in the matter of; Donell L. Prince vs. Edward G. Johnson Esq., et ale Supreme Court - Docket Number 57,871, Appellate Division - Docket Number A-14S3-03-T5 Bergen Superior Court - Docket No. BER-L-5749-02 at a cost of Years of work and thousands of dollars in costs and the value of the case itself, Compensatory damages alone is over $350,000.00 of my Personal Injury Protection benefits from two insurance policy; fees & cost for this legal action; punitive damages; etc.
In addition to damages plaintiff seeks the appointment
• I.f(.,

r ..

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 47 of 49 PageID: 1637

• •

of an independent board to review citizens complaints, while I don't know whether this would do much good, their has to be some independent process with the authority to hold people accountable to protect the average citizens, when the rule of law breaks down as it has here. When dealing with people charged with enforcing the laws, who feel that the laws don't apply to them and that we average citizens have no rights unless they decide we do, their a serious problem, what happen to me should never happen to anyone else. Clearly citizens should be able to stand up for their rights without fear of retaliation from police officers and other professional when you try to hold them accountable for illegal unethical conduct.
Back in 1995 I spoke to police Chief Zisa about the rumor going around that if someone tried to hold police officers accountable for illegal unethical conduct, that the police would try to ruin and destroy people, Chief Zisa claimed that this kind of thing didn't happen, unfortunately as I have learned the rumor was true and I believe they made an example of me. It's also important to note what has been happening, after these fictitious crimes/charges were dismissed. While I believe in coincidences, I don't trust them and while I don't have direct proof, I believe there been attempts to drug me and possibly try an set me up for drug crimes, to try an discredit me and
scare me into backing off, with the past conduct of these defendants, they clearly have motive and the means an would
• '11

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 48 of 49 PageID: 1638

commit such cowardly terroristic acts, I bring this up to try do what little I can to protect myself and if they are involved to let them know that, know matter how lies you tell, nor drug fumes corning in my rooms while I sleep, I want be bullied, intimidated, drugged into submission or scared off from standing up for my rights, know matter how much money, power or influence you all may wield and if you don't know by now we Christians are not cowards.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Donell Prince demands judgment for

all damages, in the amount of

against the defendants,

jointly and severally, and costs.

Certification Pro Se Plaintiff certifies that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief formed after an inquiry, reasonable under the circumstances, the Complaint:

(a) ... is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass .•. ,

(b) ... the claims .••• and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;

(c) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or di scovery •..•

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 87 Filed 08/06/10 Page 49 of 49 PageID: 1639
Plaintiff certifies that the amount in controversy exceeds $150.000.00.
Plaintiff certifies that their are no pending court action, arbitrations or administrative proceeding that plaintiff is aware of.
Dated: May 18, 2010
Pro Se Plaintiff Donell Prince

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE, Plaintiff,
v. THOMAS AIELLOS, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 09-5429 (JLL) OPINION

LINARES, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of seven motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court has considered the submissions made in support of and in opposition to the instant motions. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Based on the reasons that follow, the foregoing motions are granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

1. Procedural Background Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this matter, commenced the instant cause of action on October
23, 2009. An Amended Complaint was filed in February 2010. A motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed by Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center on April 5, 2010. The motion was joined by Defendants E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc. on April 16, 2010. On April
1

23, 2010, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. In doing so, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to oppose said motion and that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims as against the foregoing defendants were barred by the two-year statute of limitations given that “no wrongful act by moving Defendants is alleged to have occurred later than the end of 2005, well over two years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this case.” See Docket Entry No. 40 at 3.
On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate this Court’s April 23, 2010 decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Plaintiff also requested leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On July 12, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. In doing so, the Court also denied, without prejudice, all motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint which were pending at that time. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on the Court’s docket in August 2010. Seven motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were subsequently filed and are now before the Court.
2. Second Amended Complaint The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following relevant facts, all of which are
accepted as true for purposes of the instant motion. Plaintiff has a history with the Hackensack Police Department and Municipal Court dating
back to the early 1990s which stems from an automobile accident and his attempts to hold certain police officers, paramedics and others accountable in connection with said accident. (Compl., ¶ 19(a)). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he was involved in an automobile accident during that time period and sustained injuries as a result. The paramedic and police officer who reported to the scene of the accident, upon realizing that Plaintiff was black, questioned whether or not he had actually
2

been injured. (Compl., ¶ 19(a)). Believing that Plaintiff was faking his injuries, the police officer falsified the accident report to blame the accident on an unknown third-party. (Compl., ¶ 19(a)). At the time, the Hackensack Police Department and Municipal Court refused to allow Plaintiff to file any complaints related to this accident. (Id.). To the contrary, Hackensack Internal Affairs Police Captain Smith warned Plaintiff to back off otherwise “things could happen” to him. (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that “coincidentally some of their threats came true” when the attorney representing him in a related personal injury matter secretly agreed with his adversaries to handle Plaintiff’s claims improperly, which ultimately led to the loss of his medical and income continuation benefits. (Compl., ¶ 19(b)).
On May 23, 2005, while Plaintiff was “coincidentally” working on an appeal in connection with his automobile accident, certain members of the Hackensack Police Department illegally entered his apartment. (Compl., ¶¶ 19(c), 20(a)). According to the Complaint, four plain clothes narcotics police officers from the Hackensack Police Department (Thomas Aiellos, W. Inglima, A. Gutierrez and A. Ferraoili), who claimed they were chasing a suspect in the area, came upon Plaintiff’s apartment and noticed that the front door was ajar. (Id.). Without knocking on the door or announcing themselves as police officers, said officers attempted to enter Plaintiff’s apartment, at which time Plaintiff grabbed his gun to protect himself and turned on the lights. (Id.). Plaintiff later found out that, following the May 23, 2005 incident, Lt. Lee from the Hackensack Police Department had called a psychiatric hotline screener associated with Care Plus of NJ, Inc. and/or the Bergen Regional Medical Center Psychiatric Unit and conveyed certain information concerning Plaintiff’s behavior that evening: he had threatened to kill himself; he had his refrigerator chained up; he fought “imaginary people”; and he was generally delusional. (Compl., ¶ 22(a)).
3

Although the May 23, 2005 incident ended uneventfully, the officers returned to Plaintiff’s apartment the following night and asked Plaintiff to go down to the police station to discuss what had happened the night before. (Compl., ¶ 21). Plaintiff complied with their request and voluntarily went to the police station. (Id.). Although Plaintiff was not placed under arrest, he was led to a holding cell. (Id.). Plaintiff asked for a telephone or an attorney but was told that he was not entitled to either because he was not under arrest. (Id.). Plaintiff was then taken to the Bergen Regional Medical Center for a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to a purported Court Order. (Id.). From May 24, 2005 to May 25, 2005, Plaintiff remained at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, despite no formal charges having been filed against him. (Id.). During this time, he was “hand cuffed to [a] bed and under police guard.” (Compl., ¶ 22(c)). He was interviewed by Defendant E. Fahey, an employee of Care Plus NJ, Inc., at the Bergen Regional Medical Center on May 25, 2005. (Compl., ¶ 24). The Second Amended Complaint alleges that some of the notes taken by E. Fahey of Plaintiff’s account of the May 23, 2005 incident were fabricated, altered and later destroyed. (Compl., ¶ 24). During his stay at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff was treated by Defendant Dr. Schiffman, who falsely claimed to be having difficulty locating the relevant police reports and asked Plaintiff to sign a voluntary committal form so as to prolong his stay. (Compl., ¶ 25(b).
On or about May 25, 2005, Plaintiff was charged with several crimes in connection with the May 23, 2005 incident. (Compl., ¶ 23(a)). The criminal complaint was filed by Sergeant Thomas Aiellos and charges were brought by the Bergen County Prosecutor. (Compl., ¶¶ 23(b) and (f)). Plaintiff alleges that the criminal complaint and/or investigation report filed by Sgt. Aiellos were backdated to May 24, 2005 “to cover up what [had] happened during the first (19) nineteen hour[s]
4

[Plaintiff] was in police custody at the hospital.” (Compl., ¶ 23(c)). In connection with these charges, Plaintiff was transferred to the Bergen County Jail on June 13, 2005 and was released on August 30, 2005. (Compl., ¶¶ 25(c), 26, 27(a)). While at the Bergen County Jail, Plaintiff was denied his regular medication and was, instead, administered an antipsychotic medication, which caused him to suffer adverse physical reactions. (Compl., ¶ 26).
Plaintiff sent a letter to the Attorney General’s Office on October 25, 2005 concerning the May 23, 2005 incident. (Compl., ¶ 27(a)). Plaintiff was then referred to the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office. (Id.). He forwarded a letter to the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office in November 2005. (Id.). On November 15, 2005, the charges filed against Plaintiff were downgraded by Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni and were remanded to the Hackensack Municipal Court. (Compl., ¶ 27(b)). In particular, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that charges of aggravated assault on a police officer and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes were downgraded to simple assault and disorderly conduct. (Compl., ¶ 27(b)).
Plaintiff visited the Hackensack Municipal Court on September 12, 15 and 18, 2006 in order to file his own criminal charges against various police officers. (Compl., ¶ 28(a)). Plaintiff was told by the Court Administrator, Janice Behnke, that all criminal complaints must enclose the applicable police reports and that his allegations should first be investigated by the internal affairs unit of the police department. (Compl., ¶ 28(b)). At some point thereafter, Plaintiff visited the Bergen County Administrative Offices for the Municipal Courts to complain about his treatment at the Hackensack Municipal Court. (Compl., ¶ 29(b)). He asked if he could file a criminal complaint at that office, but was told that he could not. (Id.).
On or about February 22, 2007, Plaintiff attempted to file criminal complaints with the
5

Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office alleging “serious crimes and attempts to cover up same by a number of Hackensack Police officers and others . . .” but was not permitted to do so. (Compl., ¶ 27(c)). On February 26, 2007, Plaintiff sent a second letter to the Attorney General’s office wherein he questioned why his October 25, 2005 letter was never responded to and reiterated his prior complaints concerning his arrest and, in particular, actions by certain members of the Hackensack Police Department, members of the hospital staff, members of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, and employees of the Hackensack Municipal Court. (Ex. K to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint).
The Complaint further alleges that on September 13, 2007, during a hearing in connection with Plaintiff’s criminal case, Sgt. Aiellos testified falsely concerning the timing of Plaintiff’s arrest. (Compl., ¶ 23(d)). Ultimately, all criminal charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on October 25, 2007 by the Honorable Roy J. McGeady, P.J.M.C. (Compl., ¶ 2).
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff commenced the instant cause of action on October 23, 2009, alleging various claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19831 against numerous defendants, including but not limited to: (1) the Hackensack Police Department and several of its officers, (2) the Hackensack Municipal Court and several of its employees, (3) the Bergen County Jail and several of its employees, (4) the Bergen County Prosecutor and staff, (5) the Bergen Regional Medical Center and several of its staff members, and (6) the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage,
1 To the extent Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should be construed as alleging a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 245, such claim would fail because “no private right of action exists” under that statute. Pope v. Thornburgh, 978 F.2d 744 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In addition, the Court notes that the Second Amended Complaint makes reference to certain “state claims” in the context of asserting the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction over such claims. See Compl., ¶ 3(b). The Court does not, however, construe the Second Amended Complaint as actually asserting any substantive state law claims.
6

Municipal Division.2 This Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is
premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
LEGAL STANDARD For a complaint to survive dismissal, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In determining the
sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The Court must accept all well-pleaded
factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). The
Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiff's “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions.” Morse
v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997). Additionally, in evaluating a
plaintiff’s claims, generally “a court looks only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its
attachments without reference to other parts of the record.” Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien &
Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). With this framework in mind, the Court tuns now to
Defendants’ motions.
2 Plaintiff also attempts to sue the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. There is no indication on the Court’s docket that service of process on the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey has been properly effectuated, nor does it appear that the Attorney General has filed a responsive pleading or joined in the motions to dismiss currently pending before the Court. To the extent Plaintiff chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies in his conspiracy and/or equal protection claim and chooses to assert such claim(s) as against the Attorney General, Plaintiff shall take note of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) which provides that: “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
7

DISCUSSION Seven motions to dismiss have been filed and are currently pending before the Court. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint as asserting the following claims for relief, all pursuant to § 1983: (1) false imprisonment, (2) false arrest, (3) malicious prosecution, (4) conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution, and (5) equal protection. Plaintiff appears to assert all claims as against all Defendants to this matter. With this in mind, the Court turns now to Defendants’ motions.
1. Sovereign Immunity The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage, Municipal Division and the Hackensack
Municipal Court move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the basis that they are entitled to sovereign immunity. It is well established that a State cannot be held liable under § 1983 both because it is not a “person” under the statute and because Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the court from exercising jurisdiction over such an action. See Callahan v. City of Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 669 (3d Cir. 2000). “As part of the judicial branch of the State of New Jersey, a New Jersey Municipal Court is entitled to sovereign immunity.” Hernandez v. Switzer, 2009 WL 4730182, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2009). Plaintiff concedes that the foregoing defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Docket Entry No. 88-5 at 10. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice as to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage, Municipal Division and the Hackensack Municipal Court.3
3 See also Briggs v. Moore, 251 Fed. Appx. 77, 79 (3d Cir. 2007) (“The New Jersey Superior Court is not a ‘person’ capable of being sued under § 1983").
8

2. Municipal Liability A municipality can only be liable under § 1983 if a plan, policy or custom that it initiated
violated a constitutional right. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Although Plaintiff asserts § 1983 claims against the Hackensack Police Department,4 no such plan, policy or custom has been alleged by Plaintiff here. Plaintiff’s generalized allegation that the Hackensack Police Department’s “customs and policy’s [sic] lead [sic] to the deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights” is a legal conclusion draped in the guise of a factual allegation and thus does not benefit from the presumption of truthfulness. See, e.g., In re Rockefeller Center Props., Inc. Secs. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002). The Second Amended Complaint contains absolutely no factual content which allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the Hackensack Police Department may be held liable under § 1983. See generally Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice as to the Hackensack Police Department.
3. Immunity from Suit Under State Law Defendants E. Fahey, Care Plus NJ, Inc., the Bergen Regional Medical Center and Dr.
Schiffman all move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the basis that they are immune from suit based on a New Jersey state statute. “A state statute that creates immunity from
4 “[W]e treat the municipality and its police department as a single entity for purposes of section 1983 liability.” Bonenberger v. Plymouth Twp., 132 F.3d 20, 25 n. 4 (3d Cir.1997).
9

suit under state law does not define the scope of immunity from suit under federal law.” Bates v. Paul Kimball Hosp., 346 Fed. Appx. 883, 885 (3d Cir. 2009) (concluding that “District Court erred in finding that Appellees are immune from suit under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.7, and dismissing Bates' amended complaint [containing a § 1983 claim] on that basis.”) (citing Bolden v. SEPTA, 953 F.2d 807, 818 (3d Cir.1991)). Because all claims asserted in this matter are asserted under federal law, namely § 1983, the Court declines to dismiss such claims on the basis of an immunity created by state law. See, e.g., Mancini v. Lester, 630 F.2d 990, 994 (3d Cir.1980) (“[F]ederal rights . . . cannot be denied by the passage of state legislation.”); Bak v. Twp. of Brick, No. 91-3385, 1992 WL 233855, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 1992) (“To the extent that defendants attempt to argue that the New Jersey law immunizes them from liability from violations of plaintiff's federal constitutional rights, defendants are clearly mistaken.”) (citing Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 n. 8 (1980)).
4. Statute of Limitations All Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the basis of
statute of limitations. According to the Defendants, Plaintiff’s cause of action under § 1983 accrued, at the earliest, on May 24, 2005, when he was removed from his home by the Hackensack police and placed at Bergen Regional Medical Center for psychiatric evaluation or, at the latest, on May 25, 2005, the date on which Plaintiff was formally charged and arrested. Defendants each urge the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, in its entirety, because he filed his original complaint – on October 23, 2009 – well beyond the time permitted under the applicable statute of limitations.
A defendant may prevail on the statute of limitations at the motion to dismiss stage “if the
10

time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations.” Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Hanna v. United States Veterans’ Admin. Hosp., 514 F.2d 1092, 1094 (3d Cir. 1975)). Actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to the statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims in the state in which the claim arises,5 without regard for the facts upon which the claim is based or the nature of the injury sustained. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-250 (1989). Under New Jersey law, a personal injury claim must be brought within two years of the date of accrual. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. Thus, it follows that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in New Jersey is two years. Cito v. Bridgewater Township Police Dep't, 892 F.2d 23 (3d Cir.1989); O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 126-27 (3d Cir. 2006). A § 1983 cause of action accrues under federal law when the allegedly wrongful act occurred. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007).
A. False Arrest and False Imprisonment A section 1983 claim for false arrest accrues on the date of the plaintiff’s arrest. Torres v. McLaughlin, 163 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 1998). A claim for false imprisonment accrues at the time of unlawful detention. Hyatt v. County of Passaic, 340 Fed. Appx. 833 (2009). Plaintiff alleges to have been taken into custody on May 24, 2005. (Compl., ¶ ¶ 22, 23). Formal charges were filed against Plaintiff on May 25, 2005. (Compl., ¶ 23(a)). The Inmate Commitment Summary Report attached to Plaintiff’s original Complaint shows that bond was set on May 25, 2005. See Docket
5 The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff’s claims arose in the State of New Jersey. 11

Entry No. 2 at 38.6 Thus, Plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims accrued, at the latest,
on May 25, 2005. Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on October 23, 2009, well over two years from
the date on which these claims accrued.7 Plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims are,
therefore, untimely8 and are hereby dismissed as to all Defendants with prejudice.9
B. Malicious Prosecution and Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute
An action for malicious prosecution accrues upon the favorable termination of a criminal
proceeding. See Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 348-351 (3d Cir.1989). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for
malicious prosecution accrued on October 25, 2007, the date on which all criminal charges against
him were dismissed. (Compl., ¶ 2). Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on October 23, 2009.
6 This document was incorporated by reference into Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and is therefore properly considered by the Court on a motion to dismiss. See Second Am. Compl., ¶ 23(a) (referring to “Exhibit G” containing “three page printout of bergen county jail records.”); McTernan v. City of York, Penn., 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (“In addition to the complaint itself, the court can review documents attached to the complaint....”).
7 To the extent Plaintiff urges the Court to toll the statute of limitations based upon the “continuing tort doctrine,” Plaintiff has failed to persuade the Court (with any binding legal authority) that such doctrine should be applied in this case. See generally Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F.2d 356, 360 (3d Cir. 1986) (noting that the “continuing conduct of defendant will not stop the ticking of the limitations clock begun when plaintiff obtained requisite information. On discovering an injury and its cause, a claimant must choose to sue or forego that remedy.”).
8 Plaintiff essentially concedes as much. See Docket Entry No. 114 at 10 (“Plaintiff believes his complaint states a claim at least for malicously [sic] prosecution and related civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that should survive these Defendants Motion to Dismiss”).
9 To the extent Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should be construed as asserting a claim for unlawful search and seizure under section 1983, such claim would also be time barred inasmuch as such claim would have accrued on the date on which the officers entered into Plaintiff’s apartment – May 23, 2005. (Compl., ¶ 20(a)). See, e.g., MacNamara v. Hess, 67 Fed. Appx. 139, 143 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Accordingly any Fourth-Amendment-based claim accrued on the same day as the allegedly unlawful search and seizure.”).
12

Because Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed within two years of the date on which his malicious prosecution claim accrued, the Court declines to dismiss such claim (as well as the related claim of conspiracy to maliciously prosecute) on the basis of statute of limitations. See, e.g., Wiltz v. Middlesex County Office of Prosecutor, 249 Fed. Appx. 944, 949 (3d Cir. 2007) (“The statute of limitations on malicious prosecution claims ‘does not begin to run until the underlying criminal proceedings are terminated in plaintiff's favor.’ The same is true for civil rights conspiracy claims involving alleged malicious prosecution.”) (citing Rose, 871 F.2d at 352).
5. Failure to State a Claim Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Having dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of false arrest and false imprisonment on the basis of statute of limitations, the Court now considers whether Plaintiff has properly pled his claims of malicious prosecution, conspiracy to maliciously prosecute, and equal protection.
A. Malicious Prosecution In order to state a claim for malicious prosecution as a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) the defendant initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in Plaintiff's's favor; (3) the defendant initiated the proceeding without probable cause; (4) the defendant acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding.” Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75, 81-2 (3d Cir.2007). Thus, in order to state a
13

claim for malicious prosecution, Plaintiff must establish, among other things, that the defendant initiated a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff. The only criminal proceeding against Plaintiff alleged in the Second Amended Complaint was initiated by: (1) Sergeant Thomas Aiellos (through the filing of a criminal complaint), and (2) the Bergen County Prosecutor. (Compl., ¶ 23(b) and (f)).10 This is confirmed by the Investigation Report and Arrest and Pedigree Form, both of which were submitted by Plaintiff and incorporated by reference into Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. See Second Am. Compl., ¶ 23(b) (referring to “Exhibit H,” Docket Entry No. 2 at 42, 48, containing criminal complaint filed by Sgt. Thomas Aiellos).
As a preliminary matter, the Bergen County Prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni and John Doe members of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s staff are absolutely immune for their actions in carrying out prosecutorial functions. See Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1463-64 (3d Cir. 1992) (holding that a prosecutor is absolutely immune when initiating a prosecution). The decision to charge a suspect is one of the primary tasks of a prosecutor; therefore the Bergen County Prosecutor and Assistant Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni have absolute immunity for initiating the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. See, e.g., id. This immunity extends to John Doe members of the Prosecutor’s staff in connection with their investigative assistance relating to Plaintiff’s prosecution. See, e.g., Davis v. Grusemeyer, 996 F.2d 617, 631-32 (3d Cir.1993), abrogated on other grounds by Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 155 F.3d 644 (3d Cir.1998). Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim as against the Bergen County Prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Nicholas
10 To the extent Plaintiff has attempted to allege that other defendants indirectly “initiated” the criminal proceedings against him, any such actions by those defendants, as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, were too minor and/or removed from the prosecution to satisfy the “instituted proceedings” prong of the malicious prosecution claim. See, e.g., Wiltz, 249 Fed. Appx. at 950.
14

Ostuni and John Doe members of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s staff is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
As discussed above, the only other Defendant alleged to have initiated criminal proceedings against Plaintiff is Sergeant Thomas Aiellos. “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. To the extent Plaintiff has attempted to assert a claim for malicious prosecution as against any other defendants, such claim is not plausible in light of Plaintiff’s own allegations/submissions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants with the exception of Sergeant Thomas Aiellos.
Defendant Thomas Aiellos has not filed his own motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Instead, he has chosen to join in the motion to dismiss filed by the “Municipal” Defendants. That motion, however, concedes that Plaintiff’s “malicious prosecution claim could survive against the defendant who filed the criminal complaint, namely Sgt. Thomas Aiellos.” (Br. at 27). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution may proceed at this time, solely as to Defendant Aiellos.
B. Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute Plaintiff alleges, generally, that Defendants “conspired to commit and conceals [sic] these serious crimes and terroristic acts committed under color of law, they acted separately and/or in concert which aids, abets the maliciously [sic] prosecution of plaintiff for fictitious crimes.” (Compl., ¶ 32(a)). To constitute a civil conspiracy pursuant to § 1983, there must be a “ ‘meeting of the minds.’ ” Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 533 F.3d 183, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting
15

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158 (1970)). Thus, in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff’s “allegations of a conspiracy must provide some factual basis to support the existence of the elements of a conspiracy: agreement and concerted action.” Capogrosso v. The Supreme Court of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 2009). In this regard, a plaintiff must allege that two or more co-conspirators reached an agreement for the purpose of depriving him of his constitutional rights under color of state law. See, e.g., Parkway Garage, Inc. v. City of Phila., 5 F.3d 685, 700 (3d Cir.1993), overruled on other grounds, UA Theatre Circuit v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392 (3d Cir.2003). “It is not enough to allege that the end result of the parties’ independent conduct caused plaintiff harm or even that the alleged perpetrators of the harm acted in conscious parallelism.” Spencer v. Steinman, 968 F. Supp. 1011, 1020 (E.D. Pa.1997). To the contrary, Plaintiff must show that the alleged conspirators “directed themselves toward an unconstitutional action by virtue of a mutual understanding or agreement.” Chicarelli v. Plymouth Garden Apartments, 551 F. Supp. 532, 539 (E.D. Pa.1982).
The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following facts in support of the conspiracy claim: (1) in the early 1990s, in retaliation for trying to file a complaint against a police officer in connection with an automobile accident, Plaintiff was warned by a Captain Smith (of the Hackensack Internal Affairs Police) to “back off” or else “things could happen to him,” (2) his attorney at the time entered into an agreement with his adversary which resulted in a loss of medical and income continuation benefits, (3) four members of the Hackensack Police Department illegally entered his apartment in 2005, bullied him, made threats and ultimately unlawfully detained him, (4) his account of the 2005 incident was then altered and fabricated by the person who conducted his psychiatric evaluation at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, (5) the doctor who treated him at the
16

Bergen Regional Medical Center made false claims concerning his police reports in order to prolong Plaintiff’s stay, (6) the criminal complaint filed by Sergeant Aiellos, resulting in Plaintiff’s arrest, was fabricated and back-dated in an attempt to cover up his unlawful detention at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, (7) he was improperly administered antipsychotic medication while at the Bergen County Jail which caused him to suffer adverse physical reactions, and (8) attempts to seek redress from the Attorney General, the Bergen County Prosecutor, and the Hackensack Municipal Court were sabotaged and/or ignored. Plaintiff claims that such actions were carried out in an attempt to “ruin, destroy me and make an example of me in retaliation for plaintiff standing up to them.” (Compl., ¶ 32(b)). Thus, Plaintiff makes clear that the object of the alleged conspiracy was retaliation for complaints he made to the Hackensack Police Department in the early 1990s (in connection with the handling of his automobile accident). (Compl., ¶ 32(b)).
As a general matter, the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint do not provide sufficient factual basis to support the existence of the elements of a conspiracy, namely, an agreement and some concerted action. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts that plausibly suggest a meeting of the minds between members of the Hackensack Police Department, the Bergen Regional Medical Center, Care Plus NJ, Inc., the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office and/or the Hackensack Municipal Court. See generally Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (“Asking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement.”). Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to allege the approximate time when the agreement was made or the period of the conspiracy. See generally Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., 885 F.2d 1162, 1166 (3d Cir.1989) (“To plead conspiracy adequately, a plaintiff must set forth
17

allegations that address the period of the conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy, and the certain actions of the alleged conspirators taken to achieve that purpose.”), abrogated on other grounds by Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000).
More specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege, with any factual support, that each of the foregoing Defendants reached an agreement to carry out such actions (all taking place between 2005 and 2007) with the mutual objective of retaliating against Plaintiff for the complaints he made in the early 1990s (in connection with his automobile accident). In fact, Plaintiff does not allege that any of the foregoing Defendants were even aware that he had made such complaints in the early 1990s. The mere fact that such complaints were made to the Hackensack Police Department (concerning a “Captain Smith” and his role in the investigation of Plaintiff’s automobile accident) in the early 1990s and that a criminal complaint was filed by Sergeant Aiellos of the same police department in 2005 is insufficient, without more, to sustain a conspiracy claim. Simply put, the Second Amended Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to create “plausible grounds to infer an agreement,” as is required by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim is, therefore, granted.
C. Equal Protection In order to state a § 1983 equal protection claim, a plaintiff must “prove the existence of purposeful discrimination.” Shuman ex rel. Shertzer v. Penn Manor School Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 151 (3d Cir.2005) (citing Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir.1990)). Thus, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she “received different treatment from that received by other individuals similarly situated.” Shuman, 422 F.3d at 151 (citation omitted).
18

Plaintiff’s allegations concerning this claim are limited to the following: “Each of the individual defendants, separately and in concert, acted wilfully, knowingly, and purposefully with the specific intent to deprive plaintiff of . . . every citizen’s rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by State and Federal Laws, should not be ignored by the people charged with enforcing the laws whether at the city, county or state level.” (Compl., ¶ 31(e)). Such claim is based on nothing more than Plaintiff’s self-serving legal conclusions which are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Morse, 132 F.3d at 906 (noting that a court need not credit a pro se plaintiff's “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions”). Notably absent from the Second Amended Complaint are facts concerning any disparate treatment. For instance, although the Complaint could be construed as alleging some discrimination on the basis of race,11 Plaintiff does not allege that similarly situated whites (or members of any other race) were treated any differently or that his arrest/prosecution were tainted by racial discrimination. See generally Cook v. Layton, 299 Fed. Appx. 173, 174 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Instead of asserting merely that the arrest lacked probable cause or legal justification, Cook alleges that Officer Layton acted with an illegal motive – racial discrimination – that tainted his entire prosecution.”). Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is therefore granted.12
11 See Compl., ¶ 19(a). 12 The Court recognizes that certain defendants sought dismissal of this claim on the basis of statute of limitations. Because Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is entirely devoid of any factual content, the Court is unable to determine, at this time, whether such claim was timely asserted.
19

D. Amendment In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and given his request for leave to amend the complaint, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to amend the Complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies in two of his claims: (1) conspiracy to maliciously prosecute, and (2) equal protection, both brought pursuant to § 1983. In doing so, Plaintiff should be guided by the following directives: 1. The sole remaining claim contained in the Second Amended Complaint is the claim of malicious prosecution as against Defendant Sergeant Aiellos. All other claims contained in the Second Amended Complaint have now been dismissed as to all remaining Defendants. 2. Plaintiff is granted permission to amend his conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and equal protection claims. Should Plaintiff choose to amend these claims, Plaintiff must file with the Court a Third Amended Complaint which cures the pleading deficiencies addressed by the Court in this Opinion on or before October 29, 2010. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in dismissal of such claims with prejudice. 3. To the extent Plaintiff chooses to re-plead either of these claims (or both), Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint must clearly identify which claims are being brought against which specific defendants and to set forth specific factual allegations in support of each claim. Plaintiff may also include his claim of malicious prosecution as against Defendant Aiellos, but Plaintiff shall exclude any facts and/or defendants pertaining to claims which have now been dismissed by the Court. Plaintiff’s failure to follow this directive may result in the complaint being stricken. 5. Should Plaintiff choose not to re-plead his conspiracy and/or equal protection claims, the Second Amended Complaint will remain the operative complaint in this matter, and the case will
20

proceed solely as to Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim as against Defendant Sergeant Aiellos.

CONCLUSION Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. The sole remaining claim in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution as against Defendant Sergeant Aiellos. Plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. All claims asserted against the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage, Municipal Division, the Hackensack Municipal Court and the Hackensack Police Department are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his equal protection and conspiracy to maliciously prosecute claims, both of which are brought pursuant to § 1983. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to re-plead such claims, Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint which complies with the directives set forth by the Court above on or before October 29, 2010. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in such claims being dismissed with prejudice. Should Plaintiff choose to stand on his Second Amended Complaint, the matter will proceed solely as to Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution as against Defendant Sergeant Aiellos.

DATE:

October 8, 2010

/s/ Jose L. Linares JOSE L. LINARES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 118 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2463

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE, Plaintiff,
v. THOMAS AIELLOS,
Defendants.

: Civil Action No.: 09-5429 (JLL) ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way ofseven motions to dismiss the Complaint filed by the Defendants in this action. Based on the reasons set forth by the Court in its corresponding Opinion dated October 8, 2010,
IT IS on this 8th day of October, 2010, ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed under Docket Entry Nos. 86, 89, 92, 93, and 94 are granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
o RDERED that the motions to dismiss filed under Docket Entry Nos. 88 and 91 are granted;
and it is further. ORDERED that Plaintiff s claims offalse arrest and false imprisonment are dismissed with
prejudice as to all Defendants; and it is further ORDERED that all claims asserted against the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen
Vicinage, Municipal Division, the Hackensack Municipal Court, and the Hackensack Police Department are dismissed with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and equal protection claims. Should Plaintiff wish to do so, he shall be guided by the directives set forth by the Court in its October 8, 20 I0 Opinion. A Third Amended Complaint may be filed with the Court on or before October 29, 2010. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal with prejudice

1

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 118 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2464 ofthe conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and equal protection claims. Should Plaintiffchoose not to re-plead such claims, the Second Amended Complaint will remain the operative complaint in this matter and the case will proceed solely as to Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim as against Defendant Sgt. Aiellos. IT IS SO ORDERED. E L. LINARES, ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE, Plaintiff,
v. THOMAS AIELLOS, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 09-5429 (JLL) OPINION

LINARES, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of three motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as well as several informal requests to strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. The formal motions to dismiss have been filed by the following Defendants: Erin Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc.; Bergen Regional Medical Center and Erica Schiffman, M.D.; and Thomas Aiellos, A. Gutierrez and A. Ferraioli. The Court has considered the submissions made in support of and in opposition to the instant motions. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Based on the reasons that follow, the foregoing motions are granted. The matter will proceed solely as to: (a) Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution as against Defendant Sergeant Thomas Aiellos, and (b) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim as against Defendant Janice Behnke. Defenant Aiellos shall file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days. Defendant Behnke shall file an Answer or a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days.

1

BACKGROUND 1. Procedural Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this matter, commenced the instant cause of action on October 23, 2009. An Amended Complaint was filed in February 2010. A motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed by Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center on April 5, 2010. The motion was joined by Defendants E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc. on April 16, 2010. On April 23, 2010, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. In doing so, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to oppose said motion and that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims as against the foregoing defendants were barred by the two-year statute of limitations given that “no wrongful act by moving Defendants is alleged to have occurred later than the end of 2005, well over two years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this case.” See Docket Entry No. 40 at 3.
On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate this Court’s April 23, 2010 decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Plaintiff also requested leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On July 12, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. In doing so, the Court also dismissed, without prejudice, all motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint which were pending at that time. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on the Court’s docket in August 2010. Seven motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint were subsequently filed. On October 8, 2010, this Court granted in part and denied in part the foregoing motions. In particular, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a claim of malicious prosecution as against Sergeant Thomas Aiellos, but that all other claims asserted, as against all other Defendants, failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court did, however, grant Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended
2

Complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies in two claims: (1) conspiracy to maliciously prosecute,
and (2) equal protection. In doing so, the Court explained as follows:
To the extent Plaintiff chooses to re-plead either of these claims, Plaintiffs is hereby advised to clearly identify which claims are being brought against which specific defendants and to set forth specific factual allegations in support of each claim. Plaintiff is also directed to exclude any facts and/or defendants pertaining to claims which have now been dismissed by the Court. Should Plaintiff choose not to re-plead his conspiracy and/or equal protection claims, this case will proceed solely as to Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim as against Defendant Sergeant Aiellos.
(October 8, 2010 Opinion).
On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. Three formal motions to
dismiss have since been filed and are now before the Court. In addition, several Defendants have
filed informal requests to strike the Third Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to comply
with the directives set forth in this Court’s October 8, 2010 Opinion and Order.
2. Third Amended Complaint
The Court has closely reviewed Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and finds that the
allegations set forth therein are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the allegations set forth in
the Second Amended Complaint. For purposes of ease and efficiency, the Court relies on its October
8, 2010 recitation of the alleged facts, as follows, all of which are accepted as true for purposes of
this motion:
Plaintiff has a history with the Hackensack Police Department and Municipal Court dating back to the early 1990s which stems from an automobile accident and his attempts to hold certain police officers, paramedics and others accountable in connection with said accident. (Compl., ¶ 19(a)). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he was involved in an automobile accident during that time period and sustained
3

injuries as a result. The paramedic and police officer who reported to the scene of the accident, upon realizing that Plaintiff was black, questioned whether or not he had actually been injured. (Compl., ¶ 19(a)). Believing that Plaintiff was faking his injuries, the police officer falsified the accident report to blame the accident on an unknown third-party. (Compl., ¶ 19(a)). At the time, the Hackensack Police Department and Municipal Court refused to allow Plaintiff to file any complaints related to this accident. ( Id.). To the contrary, Hackensack Internal Affairs Police Captain Smith warned Plaintiff to back off otherwise “things could happen” to him. ( Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that “coincidentally some of their threats came true” when the attorney representing him in a related personal injury matter secretly agreed with his adversaries to handle Plaintiff's claims improperly, which ultimately led to the loss of his medical and income continuation benefits. (Compl., ¶ 19(b)).
On May 23, 2005, while Plaintiff was “coincidentally” working on an appeal in connection with his automobile accident, certain members of the Hackensack Police Department illegally entered his apartment. (Compl., ¶¶ 19(c), 20(a)). According to the Complaint, four plain clothes narcotics police officers from the Hackensack Police Department (Thomas Aiellos, W. Inglima, A. Gutierrez and A. Ferraoili), who claimed they were chasing a suspect in the area, came upon Plaintiff's apartment and noticed that the front door was ajar. ( Id.). Without knocking on the door or announcing themselves as police officers, said officers attempted to enter Plaintiff's apartment, at which time Plaintiff grabbed his gun to protect himself and turned on the lights. ( Id.). Plaintiff later found out that, following the May 23, 2005 incident, Lt. Lee from the Hackensack Police Department had called a psychiatric hotline screener associated with Care Plus of NJ, Inc. and/or the Bergen Regional Medical Center Psychiatric Unit and conveyed certain information concerning Plaintiff's behavior that evening: he had threatened to kill himself; he had his refrigerator chained up; he fought “imaginary people”; and he was generally delusional. (Compl., ¶ 22(a)).
Although the May 23, 2005 incident ended uneventfully, the officers returned to Plaintiff's apartment the following night and asked Plaintiff to go down to the police station to discuss what had happened the night before. (Compl., ¶ 21). Plaintiff complied with their request and voluntarily went to the police station. ( Id.). Although Plaintiff was not placed under arrest, he was led to a holding cell. ( Id.). Plaintiff asked for a telephone or an attorney but was told that he was not entitled to either because he was not under
4

arrest. ( Id.). Plaintiff was then taken to the Bergen Regional Medical Center for a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to a purported Court Order. ( Id.). From May 24, 2005 to May 25, 2005, Plaintiff remained at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, despite no formal charges having been filed against him. ( Id.). During this time, he was “hand cuffed to [a] bed and under police guard.” (Compl., ¶ 22(c)). He was interviewed by Defendant E. Fahey, an employee of Care Plus NJ, Inc., at the Bergen Regional Medical Center on May 25, 2005. (Compl ., ¶ 24). The Second Amended Complaint alleges that some of the notes taken by E. Fahey of Plaintiff's account of the May 23, 2005 incident were fabricated, altered and later destroyed. (Compl., ¶ 24). During his stay at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, Plaintiff was treated by Defendant Dr. Schiffman, who falsely claimed to be having difficulty locating the relevant police reports and asked Plaintiff to sign a voluntary committal form so as to prolong his stay. (Compl., ¶ 25(b).
On or about May 25, 2005, Plaintiff was charged with several crimes in connection with the May 23, 2005 incident. (Compl., ¶ 23(a)). The criminal complaint was filed by Sergeant Thomas Aiellos and charges were brought by the Bergen County Prosecutor. (Compl., ¶¶ 23(b) and (f)). Plaintiff alleges that the criminal complaint and/or investigation report filed by Sgt. Aiellos were backdated to May 24, 2005 “to cover up what [had] happened during the first (19) nineteen hour[s] [Plaintiff] was in police custody at the hospital.” (Compl., ¶ 23(c)). In connection with these charges, Plaintiff was transferred to the Bergen County Jail on June 13, 2005 and was released on August 30, 2005. (Compl., ¶¶ 25(c), 26, 27(a)). While at the Bergen County Jail, Plaintiff was denied his regular medication and was, instead, administered an antipsychotic medication, which caused him to suffer adverse physical reactions. (Compl., ¶ 26).
Plaintiff sent a letter to the Attorney General's Office on October 25, 2005 concerning the May 23, 2005 incident. (Compl., ¶ 27(a)). Plaintiff was then referred to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office. ( Id.). He forwarded a letter to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office in November 2005. ( Id.). On November 15, 2005, the charges filed against Plaintiff were downgraded by Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni and were remanded to the Hackensack Municipal Court. (Compl., ¶ 27(b)). In particular, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that charges of aggravated assault on a police officer and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes were downgraded to simple assault and disorderly conduct. (Compl., ¶ 27(b)).
5

Plaintiff visited the Hackensack Municipal Court on September 12, 15 and 18, 2006 in order to file his own criminal charges against various police officers. (Compl., ¶ 28(a)). Plaintiff was told by the Court Administrator, Janice Behnke, that all criminal complaints must enclose the applicable police reports and that his allegations should first be investigated by the internal affairs unit of the police department. (Compl., ¶ 28(b)). At some point thereafter, Plaintiff visited the Bergen County Administrative Offices for the Municipal Courts to complain about his treatment at the Hackensack Municipal Court. (Compl., ¶ 29(b)). He asked if he could file a criminal complaint at that office, but was told that he could not. ( Id.).
On or about February 22, 2007, Plaintiff attempted to file criminal complaints with the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office alleging “serious crimes and attempts to cover up same by a number of Hackensack Police officers and others ...” but was not permitted to do so. (Compl., ¶ 27(c)). On February 26, 2007, Plaintiff sent a second letter to the Attorney General's office wherein he questioned why his October 25, 2005 letter was never responded to and reiterated his prior complaints concerning his arrest and, in particular, actions by certain members of the Hackensack Police Department, members of the hospital staff, members of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, and employees of the Hackensack Municipal Court. (Ex. K to Plaintiff's Original Complaint).
The Complaint further alleges that on September 13, 2007, during a hearing in connection with Plaintiff's criminal case, Sgt. Aiellos testified falsely concerning the timing of Plaintiff's arrest. (Compl., ¶ 23(d)). Ultimately, all criminal charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on October 25, 2007 by the Honorable Roy J. McGeady, P.J.M.C. (Compl., ¶ 2).
(October 8, 2010 Opinion).
The Third Amended Complaint alleges the following additional relevant facts: During the
May 23, 2005 incident, while the police officers were in Plaintiff’s apartment, Plaintiff told Sergeant
Aiellos that the reason he bought a gun ten years earlier was because he had been injured as a result
of a car accident from the 1990s and that he had “made some enemies” as a result of trying to hold
certain individuals accountable in connection with said accident. (Third Am. Compl. at 15). Plaintiff
6

also alleges that during his September 2006 visit to the Hackensack Municipal Court, Court Administrator, Janice Behnke, treated him differently from the white and/or “Latin” males who were also in line that day. (Third Am. Compl. at 36). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that instead of accepting Plaintiff’s complaint (against certain police officers in connection with his May 2005 incident) for filing, “as she did with the . . . white and/or Latin male that was in line before Plaintiff,” Janice Behnke rejected Plaintiff’s complaint because he was black. (Id.).
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff commenced the instant cause of action on October 23, 2009, alleging various claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants, including but not limited to: (1) the Hackensack Police Department and several of its officers, (2) the Hackensack Municipal Court and several of its employees, (3) the Bergen County Jail and several of its employees, (4) the Bergen County Prosecutor and staff and (5) the Bergen Regional Medical Center and several of its staff. As previously explained, by way of Opinion and Order dated October 8, 2010, all claims were dismissed with the exception of Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution as against Sergeant Thomas Aiellos. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend two additional claims: (1) conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution, and (2) equal protection. Thus, these are the only two claims currently before the Court.
LEGAL STANDARD For a complaint to survive dismissal, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
7

plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiff's “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions.” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997). Additionally, in evaluating a plaintiff’s claims, generally “a court looks only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments without reference to other parts of the record.” Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). With this framework in mind, the Court tuns now to Defendants’ motions.
DISCUSSION
1. Conspiracy to Commit Malicious Prosecution In order to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy under section 1983, “a plaintiff must
show that two or more conspirators reached an agreement to deprive him or her of a constitutional right under color of law.” Royster v. Beard, 308 Fed. Appx. 576, 579 (3d Cir. 2009). Thus, in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff’s “allegations of a conspiracy must provide some factual basis to support the existence of the elements of a conspiracy: agreement and concerted action.” Capogrosso v. The Supreme Court of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir.2009). In this regard, a plaintiff must allege that two or more co-conspirators reached an agreement for the purpose of depriving him of his constitutional rights under color of state law. See, e.g., Parkway Garage, Inc. v. City of Phila., 5 F.3d 685, 700 (3d Cir.1993). “It is not enough to allege that the end result of the
8

parties’ independent conduct caused plaintiff harm or even that the alleged perpetrators of the harm
acted in conscious parallelism.” Spencer v. Steinman, 968 F. Supp. 1011, 1020 (E.D. Pa.1997). To
the contrary, Plaintiff must show that the alleged conspirators “directed themselves toward an
unconstitutional action by virtue of a mutual understanding or agreement.” Chicarelli v. Plymouth
Garden Apartments, 551 F. Supp. 532, 539 (E.D. Pa.1982). This requires facts suggesting a
“meeting of the minds.” Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 533 F.3d 183, 205 (3d Cir.
2008) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158 (1970)).
In dismissing this claim, this Court previously noted the following:
The Second Amended Complaint alleges, generally, that: (1) in the early 1990s, in retaliation for trying to file a complaint against a police officer in connection with an automobile accident, Plaintiff was warned by a Captain Smith (of the Hackensack Internal Affairs Police) to “back off” or else “things could happen to him, (2) his attorney at the time entered into an agreement with his adversary which resulted in a loss of medical and income continuation benefits, (3) four members of the Hackensack Police Department illegally entered his apartment in 2005, bullied him, made threats and ultimately unlawfully detained him, (4) his account of the 2005 incident was then altered and fabricated by the person who conducted his psychiatric evaluation at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, (5) the doctor who treated him at the Bergen Regional Medical Center made false claims concerning his police reports in order to prolong Plaintiff’s stay, (6) the criminal complaint filed by Sergeant Aiellos, resulting in Plaintiff’s arrest, was fabricated and back-dated in an attempt to cover up his unlawful detainment at the Bergen Regional Medical Center, (7) he was improperly administered antipsychotic medication while at the Bergen County Jail which caused him to suffer adverse physical reactions, and (8) attempts to seek redress from the Attorney General, the Bergen County Prosecutor, and the Hackensack Municipal Court were sabotaged and/or ignored. Plaintiff claims that such actions were carried out in an attempt to “ruin, destroy me and make an example of me in retaliation for plaintiff standing up to them.” (Compl., ¶ 32(b)). Thus, Plaintiff makes clear that the object of the alleged conspiracy was retaliation for complaints he made to the Hackensack Police Department in the early 1990s (in connection with the handling of his automobile
9

accident). (Compl., ¶ 32(b)).
(October 8, 2010 Opinion). Plaintiff has failed to supplement these allegations with any facts that plausibly suggest a meeting of the minds between members of the Hackensack Police Department, the Bergen Regional Medical Center, the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office and/or the Hackensack Municipal Court. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (“Asking for plausible grounds [to infer an agreement] does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement.”). Critically, Plaintiff still fails to allege, with any factual support, that any of the Defendants reached an agreement to carry out such actions (all taking place between 2005 and 2007) with the mutual objective of retaliating against Plaintiff for the complaints he made in the early 1990s (in connection with his automobile accident).
Previously, the Court had noted that it was unclear, based upon the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, whether any of the Defendants were even aware of the complaints made by Plaintiff in the 1990s. Plaintiff has amended his complaint to include the allegation that during the May 2005 incident at his apartment, he made the police officers and, in particular, Sergeant Thomas Aiellos, aware of the complaints he had made in the early 1990s. (Third Am. Compl. at 15). By this point, however, the police officers were already inside of Plaintiff’s apartment; that is, the “wheels” underlying Plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy had already been set in motion. See, e.g., Third Am. Compl. at 16 (noting that the reason given by the police officers for entering Plaintiff’s apartment on May 25, 2005 were “suspect” and that the real reason was “in furtherance of a planned, arranged scheme to intimidate and threaten the Plaintiff.”).
Moreover, facts alleged with respect to the other Defendants suggest their actions were not 10

directed (or motivated) by any type of mutual or common understanding. For instance, although Plaintiff attempts to hold Defendant Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc. liable under his conspiracy theory, the Third Amended Complaint confirms that one of the police officers told a “fictitious” account of the May 25, 2005 incident to Defendant Fahey, the Care Plus NJ, Inc. Psychiatric Screener, so that she would mis-diagnose Plaintiff as psychotic so as to destroy Plaintiff’s credibility and so that he would be released back into police custody. (Third Am. Compl. at 21). Thus, there is no indication that Defendant Fahey and/or Care Plus, NJ, Inc. had any type of mutual understanding with any codefendants directed toward the common goal of maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff. To the contrary, based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, Defendant Fahey was deceived by the police officer defendants.
Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that one of the “head doctors” at the Bergen Regional Medical Center actually “intervened” on Plaintiff’s behalf, contacted his family for him and declined to release him back into police custody. (Id. at 21-22). Lastly, despite claiming that Defendant Dr. Shiffman falsely claimed to be having difficulty locating the relevant police reports and asked Plaintiff to sign a voluntary committal form so as to prolong his stay, in furtherance of the overarching conspiracy, Plaintiff goes on to allege that the reason Dr. Shiffman did so was because she was “illegally” billing Medicare for his prolonged stay. (Third Am. Compl. at 31). Such allegations undercut the notion that Defendants, together, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right by virtue of a mutual understanding or agreement. See, e.g., Chicarelli, 551 F. Supp. at 539. Certainly, they fail to demonstrate a “meeting of the minds” for purposes of Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy to maliciously prosecute claim.
In short, the mere fact that Plaintiff made certain complaints to the Hackensack Police
11

Department (concerning a “Captain Smith” and his role in the investigation of Plaintiff’s automobile
accident) in the early 1990s and that a criminal complaint was filed by Sergeant Aiellos of the same
police department in 2005 is insufficient, without more, to sustain a conspiracy claim pursuant to
§ 1983. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is, therefore, granted. Plaintiff’s claim of
conspiracy to maliciously prosecute is dismissed, as to all defendants, with prejudice.
2. Equal Protection
In order to state a § 1983 equal protection claim, a plaintiff must “prove the existence of
purposeful discrimination.” Shuman ex rel. Shertzer v. Penn Manor School Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 151
(3d Cir. 2005) (citing Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir. 1990)). Thus,
plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she “received different treatment from that received by other
individuals similarly situated.” Shuman, 422 F.3d at 151 (citation omitted).
With respect to this claim, the Court previously held the following:
Plaintiff’s allegations concerning this claim are limited to the following: “Each of the individual defendants, separately and in concert, acted wilfully, knowingly, and purposefully with the specific intent to deprive plaintiff of . . . every citizen’s rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by State and Federal Laws, should not be ignored by the people charged with enforcing the laws whether at the city, county or state level.” (Compl., ¶ 31(e)). Such claim is based on nothing more than Plaintiff’s self-serving legal conclusions which are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Morse, 132 F.3d at 906 (noting that a court need not credit a pro se plaintiff's “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions”). Notably absent from the Second Amended Complaint are facts concerning any disparate treatment. For instance, although the Complaint could be construed as alleging some discrimination on the basis of race, Plaintiff does not allege that similarly situated whites (or members of any other race) were treated any differently or that his arrest/prosecution were tainted by racial discrimination. See generally Cook v. Layton, 299 Fed. Appx. 173, 174 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Instead of
12

asserting merely that the arrest lacked probable cause or legal justification, Cook alleges that Officer Layton acted with an illegal motive – racial discrimination – that tainted his entire prosecution.”).
(October 8, 2010 Opinion). The only substantive factual allegation added by Plaintiff in support of this claim, as best gleaned by the Court, is that during his September 2006 visit to the Hackensack Municipal Court, Court Administrator, Janice Behnke, treated him differently from the white and/or “Latin” males who were also in line that day. (Third Am. Compl. at 36). Thus, it is alleged that instead of accepting Plaintiff’s complaint (against certain police officers in connection with his May 2005 incident) for filing, “as she did with the . . . white and/or Latin male that was in line before Plaintiff,” Janice Behnke rejected Plaintiff’s complaint because he was black. (Id.).
Defendant Behnke has not filed a formal motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Instead, through counsel, she has submitted a letter, dated November 10, 2010, asking the Court to consider said letter as an informal request for the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint. In light of the allegations set forth above, the Court cannot, based on the current briefing, grant Defendant Behnke the relief requested. The Court will, instead, direct Defendant Behnke to file a responsive pleading or motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s equal protection claim within fourteen (14) days.
Having failed to set forth any additional facts in support of this claim as to any other Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a viable equal protection claim as to the remaining Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is dismissed, with prejudice, as to all Defendants with the exception of Defendant Janice Behnke.
CONCLUSION Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted. Plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy to maliciously
13

prosecute is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants with the exception of Defendant Janice Behnke.
At this juncture, this matter will proceed solely as to: (a) Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution as against Defendant Sergeant Thomas Aiellos,1 and (b) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim as against Defendant Janice Behnke. All other claims as to all other Defendants have now been dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk’s Office is directed to modify the Court’s docket accordingly.
Defendant Sergeant Thomas Aiellos shall file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Court’s corresponding Order. Defendant Janice Behnke shall file an Answer or a formal motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Court’s corresponding Order.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

DATE:

December 21, 2010

/s/ Jose L. Linares JOSE L. LINARES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 See October 8, 2010 Opinion and Order. 14

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 138 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2694

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE,

"'00 : Ch"I A No., 09-5429 (JLL)

Plaintiff,

v.
THOMAS AIELLOS, Defendants.

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of three motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint [Docket Entry Nos. 122, 125 and 127]. Based on the reasons set forth by the Court in its corresponding Opinion dated December 21, 2010,

IT IS on this 21" day of December, 2010, ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed under Docket Entry Nos. 122,125 and 127 are granted; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim ofconspiracy to maliciously prosecute is dismissed, with prejudice, as to all Defendants; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's equal protection claim is dismissed, with prejudice, as to all Defendants with the exception of Defendant Janice Behnke; and it is further ORDERED that this matter will proceed, at this juncture, solely as to the following two claims as against two Defendants: (a) Plaintiffs claim ofmalicious prosecution as against Defendant Sergeant Thomas Aiellos, and (b) Plaintiffs equal protection claim as against Defendant Janice Behnke; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant Thomas Aiellos shall file an Answer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days; and it is further

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 138 Filed 12/22/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2695 ORDERED that Defendant Janice Behnke shall file an Answer or fonnal motion to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk's Office is directed to modify the docket in this matter to reflect
the numerous Defendants who are no longer parties to this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. JO . ~ ARES, ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

DONELL L. PRINCE

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS, et al

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 09-5429(JLL) OPINION

HAMMER, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth

amended complaint (ECF No. 180), to add as defendants the Housing Authority of Bergen

County, Courtney Hoehl, Ann Stein, Robert Colombini, and Lynn Bartlett (collectively “HABC

defendants”). The proposed amended complaint asserts claims against the HABC defendants

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1437f of the United States Housing Act, for wrongfully terminating

his Section 8 rental assistance. Plaintiff also seeks to add a claim for damages against Sergeant

Thomas Aiellos for causing the loss of these benefits. In addition, the motion requests a

temporary stay in discovery. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The parties are familiar with the extensive factual background of this case, thus it will not be repeated here at length.1 Plaintiff commenced the instant cause of action on October 23, 2009, alleging various claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous defendants. (Opinion at 6, ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that on May 25, 2005, he was falsely arrested and charged by Aiellos with several “fictitious” crimes. (Third Am. Compl., Oct. 27, 2012, ECF No. 119; Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint (“Fourth Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 13, 23, Feb. 21, 2012, ECF No. 180-1.) Plaintiff was placed in county jail and was released on bail on August 30, 2005. (Opinion at 5, ECF No. 137; Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 23.) Ultimately, the criminal charges against plaintiff were dismissed on October 25, 2007. (Opinion at 6, ECF No. 137; Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 23.) Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against Aiellos is the only remaining claim in the instant action. (Order, Feb. 22, 2011, ECF No. 155.)
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a fourth amended complaint that adds new claims and defendants. (Motion to Am., ECF No. 180.) According to the proposed fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff had been receiving rental assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, commonly referred to as the Section 8 program, since June 1999. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that around June 8, 2005, plaintiff’s landlord attempted to contact plaintiff to make repairs in his apartment, and was told that plaintiff had been arrested. (Id. ¶ 14, Ex. 4-b.) Courtney Hoehl, the housing subsidy specialist at HABC, contacted Robert Colombini, HABC’s fraud investigator, to “look into plaintiff’s arrest.” (Id. ¶ 15, Ex. 4-c.) According to plaintiff, Colombini contacted the Hackensack Police Department and the Bergen County jail and learned that plaintiff was in custody with bail set at $50,000. (Id. ¶ 16.) He also received copies of the
1 See Opinion, Oct. 8, 2010, ECF No. 117; Opinion, Dec. 21, 2010, ECF No. 137. -2-

police investigation report listing the crimes plaintiff allegedly committed. (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that Colombini summarized the information he received in a memo to Hoehl and concluded that the information provided evidence of a program violation. (Id.; Ex. 4-d.) Plaintiff alleges that on June 10, 2005, Hoehl sent a letter notifying plaintiff that he had violated the “one strike and your [sic] out” policy and that his rental assistance would be terminated on August 1, 2005. (Id. ¶ 17; Exs. 4-E, K, ECF No 180-1.) The letter also informed plaintiff that he had ten days from the date of the letter to request a hearing on the matter. (Id. ¶ 17; Exs. 4-E, K, ECF No. 180-1.)
Plaintiff claims he learned about Hoehl’s letter after he was released from jail on August 30, 2005. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that, after leaving jail, he called HABC to discuss reinstating his benefits and explained to someone there, possibly Hoehl’s supervisor, that he did not violate the one strike rule or commit any crimes. (Id. ¶ 19.) The supervisor allegedly told plaintiff that the police complaint alone was enough to terminate his benefits, and that he would not be entitled to a hearing or to have his benefits reinstated until he had a court order dismissing the charges. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he was told to contact HABC to request a hearing after the charges were dismissed. (Id.)
According to the proposed amended complaint, on October 25, 2007, the charges against plaintiff were dismissed and, on December 20, 2007, plaintiff sent a letter to Stephanie Sutera to try to schedule a hearing. (Id. ¶ 20.) Northeast New Jersey Legal Services attorney Mark W. Welsh also sent letters about the matter to Sutera and Ann Stein at HABC. (Id.; Ex. 4-m.) Plaintiff claims that HABC never responded to any of the letters. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he contacted the United States Department of Housing and Urban
-3-

Development (“HUD”) by phone and by letter dated August 6, 2011 to complain about HABC’s failure to provide a hearing regarding the termination of his Section 8 rental assistance. (Id. ¶ 21(a)). Plaintiff further claims that he sent a similar letter to HABC on or around September 14, 2011. (Id. ¶ 21(b); Ex. 4-G.) Plaintiff claims that a director at the HABC, Lynn Bartlett, sent him a letter dated September 28, 2011. (Id.) The letter stated that the two-year delay between plaintiff’s termination notice and his initial request for a hearing exceeded the 10-day time frame established for requesting a hearing, that the HABC determined that plaintiff waived his right to a hearing, and that the HABC’s “decision to terminate is final.” (Id.) The letter also noted that this information was conveyed to Mark Welsh on February 7, 2008. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims that he also received a letter from Delores A. Melvin, a director at HUD, dated November 4, 2011, explaining that HUD regulations only require that a Section 8 participant be given the opportunity to request an informal hearing. (Id. ¶ 21(c); Ex. 4-H.) The letter stated that “the [HABC] did not violate any HUD regulations by terminating [plaintiff’s] Section 8 Voucher assistance.” (Id.) The letter advised plaintiff that he could attend a HABC Board of Commissioners Meeting where he could address the board and formally request that his Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher be reinstated. (Id.)
According to the proposed amended complaint, on November 21, 2011, plaintiff attended a HABC board meeting, informed the board of what happened, and told them that the loss of these benefits were part of this civil rights action. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 21(d).) Plaintiff claims that Terrence J. Corriston, HABC’s attorney, told him that he would look into the matter and call him. (Id.) When he did not hear from the attorney, plaintiff claims that he attended another board meeting on December 19, 2011 and asked Corriston about his matter. (Id.) Plaintiff
-4-

alleges that Corriston directed him to contact Lynn Bartlett to review his file. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that on December 29, 2011, he met with Bartlett and Larry Yates, a tenant
advocate. (Id. ¶¶ 21(d)(f).) Plaintiff contends that Bartlett told him that his “Section 8 rental assistance was wrongly terminated . . . based on a complaint filed by the police instead of a conviction and that [he] was given the wrong information about get[ting] a hearing on [his] termination after the matter was dismissed by the court.” (Id. ¶ 21(e)). Plaintiff requested a copy of his records from HABC on December 29, 2011 and obtained them on January 26, 2012. (Id. ¶ 21(g).)
B. Procedural Background On October 23, 2009, plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this matter, filed a complaint naming approximately twenty-eight defendants. (Compl., Oct. 23, 2009, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2010. (Am. Compl., Feb. 16, 2010, ECF No. 5.) Defendant Bergen Regional Medical Center filed a motion to dismiss on April 5, 2010, which was joined by defendants E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc. and, on April 23, 2010, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. (Order, Apr. 23, 2010, ECF No. 40.) On May 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Court’s April 23, 2010 decision. (Mot. to Vacate, May 7, 2010, ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff also sought leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Court granted on July 12, 2010. (Mot. to Am., May 20, 2010, ECF No. 54.) The second amended complaint was filed in August 2010. (Second Am. Compl., Aug. 6, 2010, ECF No. 87.) Seven motions to dismiss were subsequently filed. On October 8, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions. (Opinion and Order, Oct. 8, 2012, ECF Nos. 117, 118.) Specifically, the Court held that plaintiff’s case may proceed solely as to
-5-

plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against Sergeant Thomas Aiellos, and all other claims and defendants were dismissed. (Id.) The Court granted plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint to attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies in the claims for conspiracy and equal protection. (Id.)
On October 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 119.) Three motions to dismiss were filed and the Court dismissed all claims as to all defendants except: (1) the malicious prosecution claim against Aiellos and (2) the equal protection claim against Janice Behnke. (Opinion and Order, Dec. 22, 2010, ECF Nos. 137, 138.) On, December 29, 2010, Behnke filed a motion to dismiss the equal protection claim against her, which the Court granted. (Order, Feb. 22, 2011, ECF No. 155.)
On May 12, 2011, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi ordered that any motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties shall be filed by September 9, 2011. (Scheduling Order, May 12, 2011, ECF No. 160.) On November 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the matter, and a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 8, 2010 order which the court denied. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 166; Mot. For Reconsideration, ECF No. 167; Letter Opinion and Order, Nov. 29, 2011, ECF No. 177.) The parties also sought an extension of the discovery deadlines. (ECF Nos. 163 and 165.) The Court extended the deadline for fact discovery to February 20, 2012 and for the completion of expert discovery to May 21, 2012. (Order, Nov. 21, 2011, ECF No. 176.)
During a telephone status conference on January 24, 2012, held on the record, plaintiff told the Court that he might seek to add new defendants. The Court explained that plaintiff would need to first file a motion and that he would have to show good cause under Rule 16.
-6-

On February 8, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint that did not include a proposed fourth amended complaint. (Mot. to Am., Feb. 8, 2012, ECF No. 178.) On February 21, 2012, plaintiff filed another motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint and also included the proposed amended complaint. (Mot. to Am., Feb. 21, 2012, ECF No. 180.)
Plaintiff’s proposed fourth amended complaint adds new defendants and claims related to the termination of his Section 8 housing assistance (Fourth Am. Compl., Feb. 21, 2012, ECF No. 180-1.) Plaintiff’s proposed complaint also adds an allegation that Aiellos, by maliciously prosecuting him, directly caused the loss of his Section 8 assistance and is liable for the resulting damages. (Id. ¶ 23.) On April 12, 2012, defendant Aiellos filed a brief opposing the motion. (Opp’n, Apr. 12, 2012, ECF No. 184.) On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a reply brief. (Reply, Apr. 23, 2012, ECF No. 186.) III. ARGUMENTS
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint The proposed claims allege that defendants “deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983); and the federal regulation[s] governing the Section 8 program under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f . . ..” by wrongfully terminating plaintiff’s Section 8 assistance. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 10(f).) Plaintiff seeks damages from the proposed defendants and Aiellos to compensate him for the loss of his Section 8 assistance from the date of termination to the present, with interest. (Id. ¶¶ 23-30.) Plaintiff argues that, pursuant to the entire controversy doctrine and Federal Rule of Civil
-7-

Procedure 15(a)(2), which provides that leave to amend should be freely given in the interests of justice, he should be permitted to file the proposed fourth amended complaint. (Certification in Support of Leave to Am. (“Certification”) at 9 ¶ 12, ECF No. 180-1.) Plaintiff also contends that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) is applicable and that he meets the rule’s requirements. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff claims that the HABC defendants received notice of the litigation and would not be prejudiced in having to defend against these claims because, during the Board of Commissioners meeting on November 21, 2011, plaintiff informed the board and its attorney Terrence J. Corriston of Breslin & Breslin that “the loss of [his] rental assistance was part of the damages from a federal civil rights action.” (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff also contends that the HABC defendants had notice of plaintiff’s losses because another attorney from the Breslin & Breslin law firm represented a defendant that was dismissed earlier in the litigation. (Id..) According to plaintiff, he also provided notice of the action when he sent a document subpoena to the HABC on January 20, 2012 and, prior to this motion being filed, he filed a Notice of Claim. (Id.)
In addition, Plaintiff asserts that allowing the proposed amendments would not prejudice Aiellos or the new parties “because the amendment would only deal with the loss of rental assistance.” (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff claims that, because discovery is still ongoing and plaintiff’s deposition has not yet occurred, no party would be prejudiced.2 (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff also requests, through the instant motion, a temporary stay in discovery to prevent prejudice to [the] potential [HABC] defendants who may want to participate in discovery. (Id. at 13.)
2 Pursuant to the Court’s order filed on November 21, 2011, fact discovery closed on February 20, 2012, and expert discovery closed on May 21, 2012. (Order, Nov. 21, 2011, ECF No. 176.) Neither party has sought an extension of these deadlines.
-8-

B. Defendant’s Opposition In response, defendant argues that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because “plaintiff has had numerous prior opportunities” to amend his complaint to “identify additional parties” and has failed to do so. (Opp’n at 2, ECF No. 184.) Defendant contends that allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint for the fifth time, seven years after the underlying events occurred, and three years after plaintiff initiated this action, would “needlessly prolong this already protracted litigation.” (Id.) Defendant also argues that the claims plaintiff seeks to add against the HABC defendants would be “barred by any applicable statute of limitations,” and would be futile. (Id.) C. Plaintiff’s Reply In reply, plaintiff argues that “amendments should be freely given by the court when justice so requires and/or when defendant or objecting party fails to show that this would prejudice that party’s action or defense on the merits” and “when new information comes to light.” (Reply at 2 ¶ 3, ECF No. 186.) Plaintiff also argues that the statute of limitations is not an issue “because there was never a final determination” in the matter regarding the wrongful termination of plaintiff’s Section 8 benefits. (Id. at 2-3 ¶ 4(b).) Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 related to the Due Process Clause and Section 8 starts to run upon the final determination of this matter. (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that Aiellos would not be prejudiced by the amendment. (Id. at 4 ¶ 5(b).) Plaintiff contends that Aiellos, by maliciously prosecuting him, was “the direct proximate cause” of his assistance being terminated, and the amendment would limit the damages Aiellos owes to plaintiff. (Id.) In addition, plaintiff contends that the entire controversy doctrine and relation back rule apply, and, because “discovery . . . is still early,” the proposed amendments
-9-

would not prolong the litigation. (Id. at 4 ¶ 5(c).) IV. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, in this case, plaintiff did not comply with the September 9, 2011 deadline for amending the pleadings set forth in the Court’s scheduling order. Therefore, the Court must first consider whether there is good cause for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Scheduling Order and permit an amendment at this late date. Graham v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 271 F.R.D. 112, 118 (W.D. Pa. 2010); see also Assadourian v. Harb, No. 06-cv-896, 2008 WL 4056361, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2008) (finding that motion to amend after scheduling order deadline has passed should be treated as request to amend pretrial scheduling order).
A. Good Cause to Adjust Scheduling Order Under Rule 16 Rule 16 authorizes courts to enter schedules for proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16. The purpose of Rule 16 is to provide for the judicial control over a case, streamline proceedings, maximize the efficiency of the court system, and actively manage the timetable of case preparation to expedite the speedy and efficient disposition of cases. Newton v. A.C. & S., Inc., 918 F.2d 1121, 1126 (3d Cir. 1990). “Once the pretrial scheduling order’s deadline for filing motions to amend the pleadings has passed, a party must, under Rule 16(b), demonstrate good cause for its failure to comply with the scheduling order before the trial court can consider, under Rule 15(a), the party’s motion to amend its pleading.” Graham, 271 F.R.D. at 118 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16, rather than Rule 15, governs in these situations “because scheduling orders would otherwise ‘be nullified if a party could inject amended pleadings upon a
-10-

showing of less than good cause after scheduling deadlines have expired.’” Stallings ex rel. Estate of Stallings v. IBM Corp., No. 08-3121, 2009 WL 2905471, at *16 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2009) (quoting Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J. 1990)). “To argue that there should be a liberal policy of freely permitting amendments is to ignore . . . the purposes of case management and the scheduling orders which ‘are at the heart of case management.’” Harrison Beverage, 133 F.R.D. at 469 (quoting Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3d Cir. 1986)).
Whether Rule 16(b)’s good cause requirement is met depends on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the scheduling order. Chancellor v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist., 501 F.Supp. 2d 695, 701 (E.D. Pa. 2007). Thus “if the party was not diligent, there is no good cause for modifying the scheduling order and allowing the party to file a motion to amend its pleading.” Id. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that “despite its diligence, it could not reasonably have met the scheduling order deadline.” Hutchins v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 01-1462, 2005 WL 1793695, at *3 (D.N.J. July 26, 2005). The Court has “great discretion in determining what kind of showing the moving party must make in order to satisfy the good cause requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).” Thoman v. Philips Med. Sys., No. 04-3698, 2007 WL 203943, at *10 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2007). In addition, “the absence of prejudice to the non-moving party does not constitute good cause.” Harbor Laundry Sales, Inc. v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., Civ. No. 09-6259, 2011 WL 6303258, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2011) (citation omitted).
Courts have consistently found that “the standard is not satisfied when a party was aware of the facts that would lead it to amend and failed to act on it.” Roggio v. F.B.I., No. 08-4991, 2011 WL 3625042, at *5 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2011). “A party is presumptively not diligent if, at the
-11-

commencement of the lawsuit, the party knows or is in possession of information that is the basis for that party’s later motion to amend.” Chancellor, 501 F.Supp. 2d at 702. See also Stallings, 2009 WL 2905471, at *16 (denying motion to amend because plaintiff “had sufficient information to state the proposed claims well in advance of the Scheduling Order deadline”); see also Kennedy v. City of Newark, Civ. No. 10-1405, 2011 WL 2669601, at *2 (D.N.J. July 7, 2011) (“The most common basis for finding a lack of good cause is the party’s knowledge of the potential claim before the deadline to amend has passed.”). If a movant had the knowledge necessary to file a motion prior to the expiration of the Court’s deadline, and provides no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Court has the discretion to deny the motion. See Dimensional Commc’n, Inc. v. OZ Optics, Ltd., 148 F. App’x 82, 85 (3d Cir. 2005) (upholding court’s finding that movant could not satisfy “good cause” standard because it “was in possession of the facts underlying its proposed counterclaim well before amendment deadline”).
Here, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for allowing an amendment well after the Court’s scheduling order deadline. As noted above, the deadline to amend the pleadings passed on September 9, 2011 – five months before plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend. (Scheduling Order at 1 ¶ 3, ECF No. 160.) Plaintiff contends that new information gave rise to the proposed new defendants and claims, and that he alerted the court that he may be moving to amend the complaint. (Certification at 9, 11 ¶ 12, ECF No. 180-1.) However, the Court finds that plaintiff’s arguments lack merit and do not constitute good cause for allowing an amendment at this juncture of the litigation.
Plaintiff asserts that he recently discovered facts that provide the basis for the new defendants and claims regarding the loss of his Section 8 rental assistance. The facts alleged in
-12-

the proposed amended complaint show that plaintiff’s Section 8 assistance was terminated by letter on June 10, 2005, because of plaintiff’s arrest. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 17, Ex. 4-E, K.) The criminal charges against plaintiff were dismissed on October 25, 2007. (Id. ¶ 20.) On December 17, 2007, over two years after plaintiff’s Section 8 assistance was terminated, plaintiff claims that he and his Legal Services attorney sent letters to the HABC requesting a hearing, but received no response. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff next alleges that on August 6, 2011 – six years after his Section 8 benefits were terminated and almost two years after the complaint in this action was filed – plaintiff wrote letters to HABC and HUD seeking a hearing regarding the termination of his benefits. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 21(a).) Plaintiff provides no explanation for why he waited from December 2007 until August 2011 to pursue the matter further. On September 28, 2011 and November 4, 2011 respectively, plaintiff alleges that he received letters from the HABC and HUD stating that, because he had not requested a hearing within ten (10) days of the termination notification, he waived his right to a hearing. (Fourth Am. Compl. Exs. 4G and 4H.) The letters also explained that the decision not to provide a hearing was final. (Id.)
This “new” information should have been evident to plaintiff long before he sought leave to amend his complaint to add the HABC defendants and claims. HABC terminated plaintiff’s Section 8 rental assistance by letter dated June 2005 and never granted his request for a hearing. As early as August 1, 2005, plaintiff had the facts that form the basis of his due process and § 1437f claims. Notably, plaintiff alleged damages for the “loss of rent assistance” in all of his four prior complaints. (Compl. at 34 ¶ 32(b), Oct. 23, 2009, ECF No. 1; Am. Compl. at 35 ¶ 33(c), Feb. 16, 2010, ECF No. 5; Second Am. Compl. at 46 ¶ 33(c), Aug. 6, 2010, ECF No. 87; Third Am. Compl. at 43 ¶ 37(c), Oct. 27, 2010, ECF No. 119.) Yet, plaintiff chose not to name
-13-

the HABC defendants in any of his earlier pleadings. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite diligence in pursuing
the claims he proposes to add. Even if plaintiff was uncertain about whether the HABC planned to give him a hearing regarding the termination of his benefits, the letter he received on September 28, 2011 clearly stated the HABC’s position that plaintiff waived his right to a hearing, and that the decision was final. Yet, plaintiff waited until February 21, 2012 – nearly five months after receiving this letter – to move to amend his complaint. The diligence standard “is not satisfied when a party was aware of the facts that would lead it to amend and failed to act on it.” Roggio, 2011 WL 3625042, at *5. Thus, it appears that, until now, plaintiff simply chose not to pursue any of the claims related to his Section 8 assistance.
The Court also finds unpersuasive plaintiff’s argument that he gave the Court notice that he might seek to amend his complaint. Plaintiff contends that he alerted the Court that he would likely be amending the complaint in letters dated April 6, 2010 and April 4, 2011. (Certification at 11 ¶ 12, ECF No. 180-1; Prince Letter, Apr. 6, 2010, ECF No. 34; Prince Letter, Apr. 4, 2011, ECF No. 159.) Indeed, subsequent to the April 6, 2010 letter, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted. (Mot. to Am., May 20, 2010, ECF No. 54.) However, that motion did not seek to add the HABC defendants or claims related to the loss of his Section 8 housing assistance. (See Id.) Shortly after receiving plaintiff’s April 4, 2011 letter, the Court entered the scheduling order setting the September 9, 2011 deadline to amend the pleadings. (Scheduling Order, May 12, 2011, ECF No. 160.) Plaintiff had five months to file a timely motion requesting leave to amend the complaint, but failed to do so.
Plaintiff’s argument that he told the Court on January 24, 2012, during a phone
-14-

conference, that he might seek to amend the complaint also fails. (Certification at 11 ¶ 12, ECF No., 180-1.) At the time of the phone conference, well past the deadline to amend, the Court informed plaintiff that he would need to show good cause to amend his complaint. However, none of plaintiff’s arguments demonstrate good cause to modify the scheduling order or to permit the amendment at this late date. Thus, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and for a Stay in Discovery is denied. The Court will issue an order consistent with this Opinion.

Date: May 22, 2012

s/Michael A. Hammer UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-15-

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 188 Filed 05/22/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

DONELL L. PRINCE,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

-v-

:

:

THOMAS AIELLOS et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civ. No. 09-5429 (JLL) ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the

complaint and stay discovery, filed on February 21, 2012 (ECF No. 180);

and the Court having considered the parties submissions, including defendant’s

opposition (ECF No. 184) and plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 186);

and the Court, by Order filed on November 22, 2011, having set February 20, 2012 as the

deadline for the completion of fact discovery, and May 21, 2012, as the deadline for the

completion of expert discovery;

and it appearing that no party sought an extension of the deadlines set forth in the

November 21, 2011 Order, nor was any such extension given;

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion dated May 22, 2012;

and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 22nd day of May, 2012,

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint and stay discovery is

denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and, by June 4, 2012, shall file a joint

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 188 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3154 status report that addresses: (1) the status of this case; (2) whether the parties have discussed settlement of this matter or believe that a settlement conference with the Court would be productive; and (3) whether either party intends to file dispositive motions.
s/Michael A. Hammer UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 217 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3464

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL PRINCE, Plaintiff,
V.
THOMAS AIELLOS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 09-5429 (JLL) ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s August 23, 2012 Order denying Plaintiffs previous motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 10, 2012 Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs appeal of Magistrate Judge Hammer’s May 22, 2012 Opinion and Order denying, inter alia, Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint for the fourth time. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this matter, seeks reconsideration of this Court’s August 23, 2012 decision to prevent a “manifest injustice.”
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) provides, in relevant part:
A motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be filed with the Notice of Motion.
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy” and should be “granted ‘very sparingly.’” See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) cmt.6(d); see also Felons v. Lombard Investment Corp., Nos. 04-3993, 04-5768, 04-3992, 04-6105, 2005 WL 3104145, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2005). A judgment may be altered or amended if the movant shows at least one of the following grounds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 217 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3465
Cir. 1999)(citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). When the assertion is that the Court overlooked something, the Court must have overlooked “some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it.” McGovern v. City of Jersey, No. 98-5186, 2008 WL 58820, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 2, 2008). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached. See, e.g., F. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001).
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied for two reasons. First, Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within fourteen (14) days of this Court’s August 23, 2012 decision, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). Plaintiffs untimely motion could be denied on this basis alone.
Second, even beyond this procedural deficiency, Plaintiffs motion would, in any event, be denied on the merits. At the heart of Plaintiffs motion is his request to amend his complaint for a fourth time. This request was denied by Magistrate Judge Hammer on May 22, 2012. Plaintiff then appealed Magistrate Judge’s Hammer’s decision to this Court; this appeal was denied on July 10, 2012. Plaintiff then sought reconsideration of said decision; Plaintiff’s request was denied on August 23, 2012. Although the Court is cognizant of Plaintiffs pro se status, this is essentially Plaintiffs attempt at afourth bite at the apple. Plaintiff cites to no legal or factual matters that were previously presented to, but overlooked by the Court in rendering its August 23, 2012 decision. Plaintiff cites to no intervening change in law. Plaintiff provides no newly discovered evidence, nor does Plaintiff otherwise convince the Court that a manifest injustice would occur if this Court’s August 23, 2012 decision remains intact. Simply put, Plaintiff has provided no legal or factual basis warranting reconsideration of this Court’s August 23, 2012 decision. Plaintiffs mere disagreement with this Court’s decision does not suffice.
Accordingly, IT IS on this 5 th day of November, 2012, ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration [Docket Entry No. 213] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.
States District Judge

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 223 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 3494

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

DONELL L. PRINCE,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS, badge #221, :

individually and as police officer in

:

Police Department, City of Hackensack, :

ET AL.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 09-5429 (JLL) ORDER

This matter having come before the Court by way of plaintiff Donell L. Prince’s

(“plaintiff”) motion for the Court to grant court-appointed expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706, see Mot., Feb. 13, 2013, ECF No. 221;1

and defendant Sgt. Thomas Aiellos (“defendant”) having timely filed a letter brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, see Def.’s Letter Br., Feb. 19, 2013, ECF No. 222;2

1 Plaintiff requests that the Court grant court-appointed expert witnesses, one medical expert, and one legal expert. (Mot. ¶¶ 25–27, ECF No. 221). The medical expert is purportedly necessary to testify to the nature and treatment of spine and disk injuries that may result from an auto accident. (Id. ¶ 25). The “neutral legal expert” is requested to answer plaintiff’s questions regarding probable cause, collateral estoppel, summary judgment, admissibility of evidence, and Fourth Amendment rights on issues of search and seizure. (Id. ¶ 27). Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay his motion for the “neutral legal expert” until it rules on summary judgment or provides plaintiff further guidance with respect to his questions. (Id. ¶¶ 26–27). Lastly, plaintiff states that the filing of this motion (ECF No. 221) in no way indicates “that he need[s] expert testimony to prove elements or damages of [his] malicious prosecution case.” (Id. ¶ 28).
2 Defendant argues that pro se plaintiff is inappropriately seeking legal advice from the Court (p. 1–2, ECF No. 222), that plaintiff’s motion is barred by Rule 16 because the deadline for
(continued...)
1

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 223 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 3495
and the Court having considered the submissions, the record, and the applicable law;
and Fed. R. Evid. 706 stating, “On a party's motion or on its own, the court may order the
parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to
submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its
own choosing.” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a);
and, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706, the Court having “broad discretion to appoint an
independent expert answerable to the court, whether sua sponte or on the motion of a party,”
Ford v. Mercer Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 171 F. App’x 416, 420 (3d Cir. 2006);
and the Court noting that the policy underlying Fed. R. Evid. 706 is to aid the Court3 and
the jury’s fact-finding ability;4
2(...continued) expert reports, March 20, 2012, has long since passed (p. 3, id.), and that appointment of expert witnesses is not warranted in this procedural context and would essentially equate to the Court assisting plaintiff’s case (p. 3–4, id.). (Def.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 222).
3 “[T]he purpose of Rule 706 is to appoint independent experts that will aid the Court. Rule 706 . . . allows only for the appointment of an expert to aid the Court, and not for the purpose of aiding an indigent litigant.” Locascio v. Balicki, No. 07-4834 (RBK), 2010 WL 5418906, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2010) (quoting Kerwin v. Varner, No. 03-3352 (WWC), 2006 WL 3742738, at *2 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 15, 2006)) (internal quotations omitted). While courts in the Seventh, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits have used Rule 706 to appoint an expert for the purpose of assisting an indigent civil litigant, the Third Circuit has declined to adopt such a rule, “leaving the exercise of such authority . . . (by the very terms of the Rule) . . . in the discretion of district court judges.” Born v. Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst., 458 F. App'x 193, 197–98 (3d Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
4 “The policy goal of Rule 706 is to promote accurate factfinding . . . . Expert testimony frequently concerns complex matters with which the trier of fact is unfamiliar. Where the adversaries present conflicting expert testimony on such matters, the trier of fact may be incapable of determining which expert is correct or even locating a sensible middle-ground position . . . . Thus, Rule 706 powers are properly invoked where the issues are complex, and the parties' experts have presented conflicting testimony that is difficult to reconcile or have
(continued...)
2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 223 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 3496
and, in determining whether appointment of expert witnesses is warranted under Fed. R.
Evid. 706, the Court examining the complexity of the issues5 sought to be presented to a jury and
whether they are sufficiently complex that the standard lay juror would be unable to comprehend
them without the assistance of an expert witness, see Ford, 171 F. App’x at 420–21;
and the Court noting that caution should be used in appointing an expert witness because
4(...continued) otherwise failed to provide a sufficient basis for deciding the issues.” Wright & Gold, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6302 (1st ed.).
None of the situations that would otherwise warrant the appointment of independent experts are present in the instant case. Here, plaintiff seeks to prove his claim of conspiracy resulting in malicious prosecution, which he asserts violated his constitutional rights. In New Jersey, a claim for malicious prosecution requires a plaintiff to prove “(1) the initial suit was brought without reasonable or probable cause; (2) it was actuated by malice; (3) it was terminated favorably to the plaintiff; and (4) the counterclaimant suffered a ‘special grievance.’” 52 N.J. Prac., Elements of Action § 37:2 (2012-2013 ed.). The elements necessary for proving a malicious prosecution claim, therefore, are not complex or esoteric, and are within the comprehension of the average lay person. Further, appointment of experts under Rule 706 is “rare under virtually any circumstances[,]” and even where it could arguably be warranted, “it is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to make that appointment.” Wright & Gold, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6304 (1st ed.) (citing a survey that found only 20% of federal judges had ever appointed an expert under Rule 706, and of that 20% more than half had done so only once). Thus, given the straightforward malicious prosecution claim that plaintiff advances, and the rarity with which courts exercise their authority to appoint experts pursuant to Rule 706, the Court finds no basis on which to grant plaintiff’s request to appoint expert witnesses under Rule 706. In addition, because defendant has not submitted any expert reports or testimony, there is no indication that there will be an issue of conflicting expert testimony that would make factfinding more difficult and thereby compel the Court to appoint independent expert witnesses.
5 Courts consistently cite the complexity of the relevant issues as the determinative factor in whether they exercise their authority to appoint an expert. See Ford, 171 F. App'x at 420 (“The most important factor in favor of appointing an expert is that the case involves a complex or esoteric subject beyond the trier-of-fact's ability to adequately understand without expert assistance.”) (quoting Wright & Gold, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc.: Evid. § 6304 (1997)); see also Eldridge v. Williams, No. 10-0423 (LTS), 2012 WL 1986589, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2012) (quoting Ford, supra) (citing Reynolds v. Goord, No. 98-6722 (DLC), 2000 WL 825690, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2000)).
3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 223 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 3497
there is a risk that fact-finders will give undue weight to such a witness, on the basis of that
witness’s perceived association with the Court;6
and the Court noting that the purpose of Rule 706 is to assist either the Court or the fact-
finder in analyzing complex issues, and not to assist parties in proving their cases;7
6 “[I]n the eyes of a jury, a court's expert wears the mantle of judicial authority and impartiality[;] thus, the opinion of a biased court-appointed expert may mislead since juries might ignore his bias when weighing his testimony.” Wright & Gold, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6304 (1st ed.) (citing Cecil and Willging, Court-Appointed Experts, Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 1994, p. 553).
In Born, plaintiff was denied appointment of an expert witness, but later introduced an inadmissible doctor’s report at trial without providing notice to the Court. Born, 458 F. App’x at 195–96. The report was inadmissible because it stated no connection between the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and any of the defendants’ actions, or even any reference to the events at issue in the lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff argued that the Court wrongfully denied her motion to appoint experts and, as evidence, pointed to the fact that the jury requested to re-hear the portion of her testimony where she impermissibly brought in the report. Id. The Court disagreed, holding that the jury’s request “demonstrate[d] [the] genuine risk that [jurors] might give [expert] evidence undue weight despite the report's failure to mention the defendants.” Id. at 198.
7 “Rule 706 is not designed to assist lawyers in routine cases. Further, it is not appropriate for a court to appoint a medical expert solely to benefit a party who has otherwise failed to gather such evidence.” Caliendo v. Trump Taj Mahal Assocs., No. 03-5145 (JBS), 2007 WL 1038854, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2007); see Ford, 171 F. App’x at 420 (noting that “[a] trial judge does not abuse his discretion in declining to appoint an independent expert solely to benefit a party who has otherwise failed to gather such evidence as would suffice to overcome summary judgment.”) (citations omitted). While plaintiff here is not a lawyer and is proceeding pro se, so was the plaintiff in Caliendo. See Caliendo, 2007 WL 1038854, at *2. Therefore, the principle remains the same: where an issue is not so complex as to confuse the Court or the fact finder, appointment of an expert witness is inappropriate. Id. If the risk of confusion is not present, the moving party must make a showing of “unusual or compelling circumstances” that would warrant appointment of an expert witness. Id.; see also Locascio, 2010 WL 5418906, at *3 (holding Rule 706 is “not for the purpose of of aiding [a] . . . litigant”).
Here, the Court finds no risk of confusion and plaintiff has failed to make a showing of “unusual or compelling circumstances.” Plaintiff alleges conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution (¶¶ 20–34), vicarious liability for the City of Hackensack (¶ 35), denial of civil rights (¶ 36), and resulting damages (¶ 37). (See Third Am. Compl., Oct. 28, 2010, ECF No. 119).
(continued...)
4

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 223 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 3498
and the Court finding that the issues in the instant case do not involve matters beyond the
comprehension of a jury with appropriate instructions from a judge;
and the Court finding that it cannot provide any party – even a pro se party – legal advice
7(...continued) Plaintiff states that a medical expert is necessary to testify to the nature and extent of his injuries resulting from an auto accident in the past (not involving any of the defendants herein). (ECF No. 221 ¶ 25). Plaintiff, however, fails to explain why an expert witness is necessary for the Court, or the jury, to understand the issues in this matter. See Ford, 171 F. App'x at 421 (affirming a district court's denial of a motion for a court-appointed medical expert, “finding that the medical issues presented were not so complex as to require an independent court-appointed expert[,]” where the plaintiff claimed to “have experienced shortness of breath, diminished lung capacity, production of a black substance in his lungs, eye irritation, light headedness, forgetfulness, a general lack of energy, and headaches” due to second-hand smoke and poor air quality within the prison). The issues presented in this case are not complicated medical conditions or scientific theories that are beyond the comprehension of the average lay juror. See id. (affirming the lower court’s finding that the medical issues presented were not so complex as to require an independent court-appointed expert); see also Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 359–60 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding fact-finders could understand whether the plaintiff's medical needs were “serious” without the testimony of an expert; stating, “the symptoms which [Plaintiff] experienced were not beyond a lay person's grasp.”). Here, though fairly intricate, plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy and civil rights violations are still well within the average juror’s ability to understand upon proper instruction by the Court.
As to the “neutral legal expert,” the Court finds no precedent stating a permissible reason for such an appointment, with the possible exception of a legal malpractice case where the standard of care is at issue or whether legal fees are unreasonable. See Gans v. Mundy, 762 F.2d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding the standard of care in a legal malpractice suit must be established by expert testimony); see also United States v. Monaghan, 648 F. Supp.2d 658, 662 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (holding an expert could not testify as to the substantive ethics laws governing state employees, but only to the method and scope of their publication). Plaintiff cites to no case law that supports his proposed use of a legal expert in the instant factual context. Rather, plaintiff’s request seems akin to a motion for pro bono counsel. While the Court is sympathetic to the difficulties of a pro se litigant navigating the legal system, it cannot, under Rule 706, provide plaintiff with legal assistance.
5

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 223 Filed 03/18/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 3499
or analysis;8 and the Court finding that none of the issues here are so complex as to warrant
appointment by the Court of an expert witness under Rule 706; and the Court finding in its discretion pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 7069 that the
appointment of an expert witness is unwarranted at this stage of the proceedings; IT IS THEREFORE on this 18th day of March, 2013 ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to grant court-appointed expert witnesses pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 706 (ECF No. 221) is denied with prejudice.
s/Michael A. Hammer UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8 “Pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant.” Peterson v. Weiss, No. 12-5431 (NLH), 2012 WL 6042795, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2012) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). However, “pro se litigants must still plead the essential elements of their claim and are not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil procedure,” Peterson, 2012 WL 6042795, at *1 (quoting McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)) (quotations and modifications omitted). The Court must remain impartial throughout the proceedings, even where it will not act as the fact-finder. See ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct CANON 2A (2010) (“A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”). To do otherwise would jeopardize severely the impartiality necessary for a fair trial. Thus, to the extent plaintiff requests that the Court provide legal advice or analysis in relation to the instant action (see Mot. ¶¶ 24, 26–27, ECF No. 221), the Court declines to do so.
9 Rule 706 uses the word “may” throughout, indicating that the decision to appoint expert witnesses is within the discretion of the Court. Fed. R. Evid. 706; see also Wright & Gold 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6304 (1st ed.) (“The first two sentences of subdivision (a), which address the questions of appointment and selection, use the word “may” no less than four times. Accordingly, these questions are matters within the discretion of the trial court.”).
6

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 3765

DONELL L. PRINCE P.O. Box 1024 Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-1024 (862) 290-4537 Pro Se plaintiff

Plaintiff Donell L. Prince

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY- NEWARK
FILE NO.: 2:09-CV-5429 JUDGE: Hon. Jose L. Linares

vs. Defendant (s)
Thomas Aiellos et al

CIVIL ACTION WITH JURY DEMAND
AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE
RULE 56 & 12 (c)

To: Clerk of United States District Court Hon. Joseph A. Dickson - Magistrate Judge Hon. Jose L. Linares
United States District Court District of New Jersey- Newark
M.L. King, Jr. Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street - P.O. Box 419 Newark, New Jersey 07101-0419

RECEIVED
JUL 09 2013

Chad L. Klasna, Esq.
c/o Callahan & Fusco, LLC
72 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 320
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned pro se plaintiff,

Donell L. Prince hereby moves before the United States District

Court, District of New Jersey - Newark, on/or about

, 2013

or thereafter pursuant to Rule 56 & , asking the court to

enter Summary Judgment in plaintiffs Donell PrincE~'s favor,

and against the defendant Thomas Aiellos.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pro se plaintiff shall

rely upon the attached Statement of Undisputed Facts, Breif

I

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 2 of 21 PageID: 3766

with Memorandum of Law and Certifications/Affidavits in support of Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dated: July~ , 2013

BY:~~ Q~ DOell L. Prince, Pro se Plaintiff

CERTIFICATION OF FILING AND SERVICE
Pro Se plaintiff Donell Prince certifies that copies of this Motion was filed with the court clerk and mailed to the following counsel of record.
To: Clerk of United States District Court Hon. Joseph A. Dickson - Magistrate Judge Hon. Jose L. Linares United States District Court District of New Jersey- Newark
M.L. King, Jr. Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street - P.O. Box 419 Newark, New Jersey 07101-0419
Chad L. Klasna, Esq.
c/o Callahan & Fusco, LLC
72 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 320 East Hanover, New Jersey 07936

BY:CV~ Donell L. Prince, Pro se Plaintiff

2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 3 of 21 PageID: 3767
AMENDED INDEX Notice of Motion: Certification: Procedural Background •....••..........••• 3-10 Legal Standards •..••••....•..•••....•.••. 11-20 statement of Material Facts: Undisputed or Disputed Facts •......•••... 1-18 Arguments for Summary Judgment on facts •.•.•....••.• 1-10 Affidavits: Statements ..•.•...••••••.•...•.•••••••••. 1-15
Exhihits ....•.•...••...••..••.•.•.•••••.• 1-3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 4 of 21 PageID: 3768

DONELL L. PRINCE
P.O. Box 1024 Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-1024 (862) 290-4537 Pro Se plaintiff

Plaintiff Donell L. Prince

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY- NEWARK
FILE NO.: 2:09-CV-5429 JUDGE: Hon. Jose L. Linares

vs. Defendant (s)
Thomas Aiellos et al

AMENDED

CIVIL ACTION CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION PURSUANT TO
RULE 56 & 12 (c)

1. I pro se plaintiff, Donell L. Prince hereby certifies that this Motion is submitted, pursuant to Rule 56, asking the court to enter Summary Judgment in plaintiff's Donlell Prince's favor, and against the defendant Thomas Aiellos in this matter.
Procedural Background 2. As the court is aware, on October 23, 2009, plaintiff filed the original Complaint and a Amended Complaint on February 16, 2010, naming (28) defendants and some john doe's, in an action at law to redress the deprivation of federal rights under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to plaintiff (s) by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3. On or about January 6, 2010 , Notice and Request to Waive Service of Summons was mailed out to all defendants, and on February 11, 2010 the clerk signed and stamped Summons and returned same to plaintiff and plaintiff served as many

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 5 of 21 PageID: 3769
defendants as possible. 4. And thereafter in May 2010 and October 2010, with
court permission a Second & Third Amended Complaint were filed
pursuant to Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5. Attorneys for defendants filed Motions to Dismiss,
under Rule 12(b)(6) as follows; (a) By Kenneth Hayes on behalf of his clients defendant
Bergen Regional Medical Center and Erica Schiffman, M.D., (b) Richard Malagiere, PC, on behalf of his cleints
defendants, Det. W Inglima, Lt. Lee, Lt. Plunket, Officer C. Toomey, Officer T. Gervasi badge #218, Officer J. Gervasi D.C.I. division, Internal Affairs Captain Walsh, Sgt. A. Trezza badge; Court Administrator Janice Behnke; Deputy Court Administrator Elizabeth P.;
(c) By Karen Boe Gatlin Esq., of Breslin & Breslin on
behalf of thier client defendant, Bergen County Jail and John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Jail staff.
(d) The law office of Wayne J. Positan Esq., on behalf of his clients defendants, Bergen County Prosecutor; Prosecutor Ostuni; John Doe member (s) of Bergen County Prosecutor's staff.
(e) By George A. Prutting, Jr., on behalf of his clients defendants Care Plus of New Jersey and E. Fahey.
(f) By Vincent L. Galasso Esq. on behalf of his cleints defendants, Thomas Aiellos, Det. A Gutierrez, Det. A Ferraoili.
6. On October 8, 2010 Hon. Jose L. Linares, ordered some of plaintiffs claims dismissed and also granted leave for plaintiff to amend his conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 6 of 21 PageID: 3770

equal protection claims by October 29, 2010.

7. On/or about December 22, 2010 Hon. Jose L. Linares,

ordered plaintiffs claims dismissed as its relates to conspiracy

to maliciously prosecute and equal protection claims dismissed

against all but one defendant and ordered this matter to proceed

as to plaintiffs claims for maliciously prosecute against

sergeant Thomas Aiellos, ordered an Answer to be filed for same.

8. On 1/3/11 an Answer to amended complaint and third

amended complaint was filed for defendant Thomas ~~iellos, by

attorney Vincent Galasso.

9.

By order dated May 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge Cecchi

set scheduling orders for discovery in this matter, wherein

the court informed parties that all discovery dispute or issues

were to filed no later than November 7, 2011 and same would

be done informally by letter, no motions. A problem came up

dealing with discovery time set by the court in this matter,

this came about when plaintiffs deposition which ~Nas set for

July 13, 2011 was postponed by defendant Aiellos attorney

Vincent L. Galasso, because the city of Hackensack was to hire

new attorney to take over this matter for city, and said new

attorney was to contact plaintiff after taking over the case

to reschedule, see letter dated July 12, 2011 attached. By letter

dated October 24, 2011, the plaintiff was informed for the first

time by Chad L. Klasna Esq. of Callahan & Fusco LLC, the new

attorneys for defendant Aiellos that they had take over case.

By letter dated November 1, 2011, to Magistrate Judge Cecchi,

the plaintiff asked the court for some relief in the form of

5

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 7 of 21 PageID: 3771
addition discovery time in this matter. 10. The plaintiff also filed motions to request District
Court Judge Jose L. Linares to grant reconsideration of prior order and a stay in the plaintiff case for a few months to deal with health/medical issues related to plaintiff and his doctors death. These motions for temporary stay and reconsideration were denied.
11. Thereafter Hon. Michael A. Hammer - Magistrate Judge granted additional discovery time with phone conference and by order, a second phone conference took place on 1/24/12 with Hon. Michael A. Hammer and parties and as part of conversation plaintiff informed judge and defendant attorney that plaintiff could be amending complaint and was trying to get records.
12. Thereafter on February 8 & 21, 2012 plaintiff filed motion and amended motion to Amend Complaint in plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) & 115(c), to add new parties of Housing Authority of Bergen County, employee's and/or former employee's of same Courtney Hoehl, Robert Colombini, Ann Stein, Lynn Bartlett as it relates to the damages for the loss plaintiff's rental assistance; and requested temporary stay in discovery until motion was ruled on.
13. Thereafter Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer, order dated May 22, 2012, denying plaintiff motion to Amend Complaint in plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2)
& 15(c); and denied temporary stay in discovery until motion
was ruled on. 14. Thereafter on June 5 & 11, 2012 plaintiff filed motion

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 8 of 21 PageID: 3772
and supplemental under Rule 72 dealing with plaintiff's objections to the Order by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer dated May 22, 2012, denying plaintiff motion to Amend Complaint in plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2)
& 15(c)i and temporary stay in discovery until motion was ruled
on. Plaintiff respectfully request that Hon. Jose L. Linares and/or the court, consider plaintiffs objections and then allow plaintiff to Amend his Complaint to add new parties of Housing Authority of Bergen County, employee's and/or formE~r employee's of same Courtney Hoehl, Robert Colombini, Ann Stein, Lynn Bartlett as it relates to the damages for the loss plaintiff's rental assistance, which is in the interest of justice and is required by the entire-controversy doctrine, and would not prejudice defendant Aiellos and in fact would limit his damages by the re-instatement of my Section (8) rental assistance etc.
15. Thereafter a third phone conference took place on 6/14/12 with Hon. Michael A. Hammer - Magistrate Judge, plaintiff Donell Prince and defendant attorney Chad L Klasna and by order ordered fact discovery closed; requested parties submit letter by July 12, 2012 addressing their respective positions on whether either party will seek to introduce expert testimony; and to discuss settlement.
16. Thereafter on July 10, 2012 plaintiff filed motion
under Rule 210 & 56 to deal with issue of collateral estoppel
as it relates to probable cause from prior litigat.ion with parties which is a question of law for the court.
17. Thereafter on or about July 10-11 2012, District Court

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 9 of 21 PageID: 3773
Judge Jose L. Linares, denied plaintiff motion and supplemental with transcripts of phone conferences, filed June 5 & 11, 2012, under Rule 72 dealing with plaintiff's objections to the Order by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer dated May 22, 2012, denying plaintiff motion to Amend Complaint in plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) & 15(c)i and temporary stay in discovery until motion was ruled on.
18. Thereafter on July 24 2012, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer denied plaintiff motion with out prejudice from motion
under Rule 210 & 56 to deal with issue of collateral estoppel
as it relates to probable cause from prior litigation with parties which is a question of law for the court.
19. Thereafter on August 3, 2012, plaintiff filed motion for reconsideration of order dated July 10-11 2012, by District Court Judge Jose L. Linares, denying plaintiff motion and supplemental with transcripts of phone conferences, with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer filed June 5 & 11, 2012, under Rule 72 dealing with plaintiff's objections.
20. Thereafter on September 1, 2012, plaintiff received a copy of District Court Judge Jose L. Linares, order denying plaintiff reconsideration motion which was signed and filed on August 23 & 24 2012 and mailed out on August 29, 2012.
21. Thereafter on September 7, 2012, Magist.rate Judge Michael A. Hammer, ordered the telephone status conference to be held on September 28 2012 to be adjourned until October 31, 2012 and thereafter adjourned until January 11, 2013.
22. Thereafter a phone conference took place on 1/11/13

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 10 of 21 PageID: 3774
with Hon. Michael A. Hammer - Magistrate Judge, plaintiff Donell Prince and defendant attorney Chad L Klasna and ordered any motion by plaintiff related to experts to be filed by 2/8/13, defendant response by 2/19/13 and reply by 2/25/13.
23. Thereafter on February 8, 2013, plaintiff filed motion pursuant to Rule 706. to request the court appoint expert witnesses in the matter of Donell Prince vs. Aiellos, File# 2:09-CV-5429.
24. Thereafter on March 18, 2013, plaintiff motion pursuant to Rule 706. to request the court appoint expert ~ritnesses in the matter of Donell Prince vs. Aiellos, File# 2:09-CV-5429, was denied, by Magistrate Judge, Michael A. Hammer.
25. Thereafter a phone status conference was ordered for 5/8/13 by Magistrate Judge, Michael A. Hammer, with pro se plaintiff Donell Prince and defendant attorney Chad L Klasna and thereafter, by letter dated 4/22/13 from defendant attorney Chad L Klasna, said phone status conference was rescheduled to 5/23/13, before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson.
26. On 5/23/13 a phone status conference took place before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson, pro se plaintiff and defendant's attorney Chad L Klasna, wherein Judge Joseph A. Dickson ordered that defendant shall file its dispositive motion by 7/1/13 and plaintiff may file it's dispositive motion by 7/1/13 or file cross motion for Summary Judgment against defendant in accordance with rules of court and parties shall file opposition and reply papers in accordance with rules or request addition time pursuant to rules.

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 11 of 21 PageID: 3775 27. On June 28, 2013, defendant Aiellos attorney Chad
L Klasna request a 30 day extension of time to file Summary Judgment motion, claiming he leaving law firm and new attorney needed additional time to prepare and file motion; thereafter by Order dated July 1, 2013, Judge Joseph A. Dickson granted 30 day extension of time to file defendant Aiellos's Summary Judgment motion,
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment. Dated: July3, 2013
BY~ tyL6J(J ~ D~ L. Prince, Pro se Plaintiff
{O

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 12 of 21 PageID: 3776
Court's Jurisdiction This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) & 1343, this
being an action authorized by law to redress the deprivation of federal rights under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity
secured to plaintiff (s) by the Fourth & Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the united states under the Civil Rights
Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also this Court has jurisdiction over
state claims based on the principles of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Summary Judgment Standard A party seeking summary judgment must "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp., 79 F.3d 1358, 1366 (3d Cir. 1996); Healy v. New York Life Ins. Co., 860 F.2d 1209, 1219 n.3 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 u.s. 1098 (1998); Hersh v. Allen Prods. Co., 789 F.2d 230, 232 (3d eire 1986). The threshold inquiry is whether "there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (noting that no issue for trial exists unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict in its favor). When deciding the existence of a genuine
II

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 13 of 21 PageID: 3777
issue of material fact exist, a Court must view the underlying facts and draw all reasonable inferences, doubts, and issues of credibility in favor of non-moving party; Summary judgment motions thus require judges to assess how one-sided evidence is, or what a fair-minded jury could reasonably decide; see Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460
(3d Cir. 1989); Meyer v. Riegel Products Corp. 720 F.2d 303, 307 (3d Cir. 1983); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Pennsylvania Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995); Hancock Indus. v.
Schaeffer, 811 F.2d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 1987). Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure provides
in relevant part: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadin9, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The rule does not increase or decrease a party's ultimate burden of proof on a claim. Rather, " the determination of whether a given factual dispute requires submission to a jury must be guided by the substantive evidentiary standards that apply to the case." Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255. Under the rule, a movant must be awarded summary judgment
on all properly supported issues identified in its motion, except
those for which the non-moving party has provided evidence to

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 3778

show that a question of material fact remains. see Colotex,

477 U.S. at 324. Put another way, once the moving party has

properly supported its showing of no triable issue of fact and

of an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, for example,

with affidavits, which may be "supplemented ••• by depositions,

answer to interrogatories, or further affidavits .. its opponent

must do more then simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts." Matsushite, 475 U.S. at 586

and Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48, (stating that by its very

terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some

alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat

an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment;

the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material

fact.")

What the non-moving party must do is "go beyond the

pleadings and by its own affidavits, or by the depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trail.,

see Colotex, 477 U.S. at 324. and Lujan v. National Wildlife

Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990), stating that the object of

rule 56(e) is not to replace conclusory allegations of the

complaint

with conclusory allegations of an affidavit.,

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N.

Am. Inc., 974 F.2d 1358,1363 (3d Cir. 1992), ce~rt. denied,

507 U.S. 912 (1993) stating that to raise a genuine issue of

material fact, .•• the opponent need not match, item for item,

each piece of evidence proffered by the movant," but must exceed

13

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 15 of 21 PageID: 3779
the mere scintilla, threshold and ••• offer a genuine issue of material fact; as stated in Orsatti v. New Jersey state Police, 71 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir. 1995) the non-movantls burden is rigorous: it must point to concrete evidence in the record, mere allegations conclusions, conjecture, and speculation will not defeat summary judgment.
The Local Civil Rules supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide that II each side shall furnish a statement which sets forth material facts as to which there exists or does not exist a genuine issue. 1I L. Civ. R, 56.1, under the rule, I facts submitted in the statement of material facts which remain uncontested by the opposing party are deeml~d admitted. I However, lithe parties statements pursuant to local rule 56.1 cannot bind the court if other evidence establishes that the stipulated facts are in error.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 standard
A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of his or her constitutional rights. Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or Territory .... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United states or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privilege, and immunity secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress •••••• Thus, to establish a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged conduct was committed by
(1) a person acting under color of state law and (2) that the

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 16 of 21 PageID: 3780
conduct deprived him of rights, privilege, and immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United state; see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.s. 144, 152 (1970); Piecknick v.
Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56 (3d Cir 1994). Malicious Prosecution standard
In order to state and establish a claim for Malicious Prosecution as a Constitutional violation, the plaintiff must show that:
(1) Defendant initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in plaintiff's favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) Defendant acted maliciously or for a purpose other
than bringing plaintiff to justice; and (5) Plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent
with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding. see Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75, 81-2 (3d Cir. 2007); Camiolo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty C., 334 F.3d 345, 362-363 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521 (3d Cir. 2003); Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 222 (3d eire 1998) ( holding that a malicious prosecution claim is grounded in the Fourth Amendment concept of "seizure". In Albright v. Oliver, (1995) the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that alleged constitutional violations as a result of malicious
prosecution under § 1983, are properly analyzed under both the
procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the "objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, but not the "open-ended" substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
IS

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 17 of 21 PageID: 3781
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant i the Amendment, also protects against unreasonable seizure of their persons, including a brief detention.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides; Nor shall any person ••• be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ••••• ;
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, section one provides; Nor shall any state deprived any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .•••• ;
The Fifth & Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
proscribes that, the prohibitions of the Due Process Clauses apply only to the actions of state actors ••• ; and that Procedural due process, protections extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature; Due Process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person and when government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a dueprocess violation.
Additionally all Circuit Courts, to consider the question have unanimously held that evidence of malice, that is, misrepresentation, withholding, or falsification of evidence, fraud, perjury, or other bad-faith conduct, is itself probative of a lack of probable cause, see Moore v. Hartman, 571 F.3d 62, 67 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Cases cited as Hinchman v. Moore, 312
Ib

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 18 of 21 PageID: 3782
F.3d 198, 205-06 (6th Cir. 2002) and Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 275 (6th Cir. 1989), "Falsifying facts to establish probable cause to arrest and prosecute an innocent person is of course patently unconstitutional ••• "; and see Orsatti v. New Jersey state Police, 71, F.3d 480, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (The right to be free from arrest except on probable cause, was clearly
established in 1988 & 1989.")
Immunity from Suit Standards: Immunity under state law; "A state statute that creates immunity from suit under state law does not define the scope of immunity from suit under federal law." Bates v. Paul Kimball Hosp., 346 Fed. App'x. 883, 885 (3d Cir. 2009); citing Bolden v. SEPTA, 953 F.2d 807, 818 (3d Cir. 1991); " Federal rights cannot be denied by the passage of state legislation see Mancini v. Lester, 630 F.2d 990, 994 (3d Cir. 1980); Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 n. 8 (1980).
Qualified & Absolute Immunity Standard: Notwithstanding the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 statute~'s imposition of liability to "every person", courts have limit.ed its application according to common-law immunities re~cognized at the time of enactment. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 484 (1991) and Pierson v. Bay, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967); Specifically, the courts have applied two kinds of immunities in § 1983 actions, qualified & absolute immunity, most public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity, which operates to shield them from suit for their good-faith conduct, see Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465, F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir. 2006) and Harlow v.
17

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 19 of 21 PageID: 3783
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982). Qualified immunity shields officials from suit for their objectively reasonable conduct, see Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. ct. 808, 815 (2009); The doctrine operates lito ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice that their conduct is unlawful." Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740 (2002); While the doctrine of qualified immunity presents many close questions, all agree that it affords no protection to II the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
The Supreme Court has suggested a two-step inquiry to determine whether a defendant official is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity: "First, a court must decide whether facts plaintiff alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right. and if so then, "Second, the court must decide if the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." and while not mandatory, it continues to provide a useful framework for conducting a qualified immunity analysis Brandt v. Monte, 626 F. Supp. 2d 469, 485 (D. N.J. 2009) (citing Pearson, 129 S.ct. at 815-16); The District Courts are required to view and credit the facts/version in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as cited in Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 326 (3d Cir. 2009) and Halpin v. Camden, 310 F. App'x 532 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009).
Absolute immunity protects officials who perform certain special functions, like judges, prosecutors, and witnesses, because it is though that these functions should be carried
I~

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 20 of 21 PageID: 3784
out free from the threat of litigation; However, lithe official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question." see Yarris, 465 F.3d at 135 and Burns, 500 U.S. at 486.
Collateral Estoppel & Res Judicata Standard
Res Judicata - claim preclusion, wherin a party who has asserted a right to relief arising out of a particular transaction or occurrence must join all claims she has arising from it, or the omitted claims will be barred bu res judicata.
Collateral Estoppel - issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitiation an issue.
The Full Faith and Credit Act 28 U.S.C. S 1738, requires that federal courts "give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State which judgment was rendered." Misrra vs. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S.75, 81 (1984).
Under collateral estoppel once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a deferent cause of action involving a party to the first case. As courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources and by preventing inconsistent decisions and encourage reliance on adjudication. "Allen vs. McCurry 449 U.S. at 94.
Application of collateral estoppel and whether an issue
(,

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 229 Filed 07/09/13 Page 21 of 21 PageID: 3785
"
is precluded based upon prior litigation is a question of law; Szehinskyj vs. AG of the united states, 432 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2005); Selective Ins. Co. vs. McAllister, 327 N.J. Super, 168, 173 (App.Div.), cert. denied, 164 N.J. 188 (2000).
The Third Circuit has held that application of collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of an issue" 'required the presence of four factors specifically; (1) the identical issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the previous determination was necessary to the decision; and (4) the party being precluded from relitigating the issue was fully represented in prior action. The Third Circuit has also considered whether the party being preclude had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in prior action, and whether the issue was determined by a final and valid judgment. "Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 458 F.3d 244, 249 (3d Cir. 2006) cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1305, 127 S.ct. 1878, 167 L. Ed.2d 364 (2007)
Federal Rules of Evidence: Rule 1007. Testimony Or Statement Of A Party To Prove Content. which states; The proponent may prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph by the testimony, deposition, or written statement of the party against whom the evidence is offered The proponent need not account for the original.

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 4304

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE, Plaintiff,
v. SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 09-5429 (JLL) (JAD) OPINION

LINARES, District Judge.

This action concerns a single claim of malicious prosecution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Thomas Aiellos (“Defendant”), who was at all relevant times a sergeant with the Hackensack Police Department. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Donell L. Prince (“Plaintiff’), proceedingpro se in this action, has filed a motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docket Entry No. 229). In response, Defendant has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 234). The Court has considered the submissions made in support of and in opposition to both motions and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment are DENIED.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, the sole remaining claim in this action,
centers on Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant Aiellos fabricated the facts underlying a criminal

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 4305
complaint that he filed against Plaintiff. Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this matter, explains the basis of Plaintiffs claim. Although the facts alleged in Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint are not accepted as true for purposes of this motion, given the protracted history of this case and Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court summarizes these facts below fir background puiposes only. The Court’s summary is drawn from its October 8, 2010 recitation of the alleged facts.
Plaintiff has a history with the Hackensack Police Department and Municipal Court dating back to the early 1990s which stems from an automobile accident and his attempts to hold certain police officers, paramedics and others accountable in connection with said accident. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he was involved in an automobile accidence during that time period and sustained injuries as a result. The paramedic and police officer who reported to the scene of the accident, upon realizing that Plaintiff was black, questioned whether or not he had actually been injured. Believing that Plaintiff was faking his injuries, the police officer falsified the accident report to blame the accident on an unknown third-party. At the time, the Hackensack Police Department and Municipal Court refused to allow Plaintiff to file any complaints related to this accident. To the contrary, Hackensack Internal Affairs Police Captain Smith warned Plaintiff to back off otherwise “things could happen” to him. Plaintiff further alleges that “coincidentally some of their threats came true” when the attorney representing him in a related personal injury matter secretly agreed with his adversaries to handle Plaintiffs claims improperly, which ultimately led to the loss of his medical and income continuation benefits. On May 23, 2005, while Plaintiff was “coincidentally” working on an appeal in connection with his automobile accident, certain members of the Hackensack Police Department illegally entered his apartment. According to the Complaint, four plain clothes narcotics police officers from the Hackensack Police Department (Thomas Aiellos, W. Ingima, A. Gutierrez and A. Ferraoili), who claimed they were chasing a suspect in the area, came upon Plaintiffs apartment and noticed that the front door was ajar. Without knocking on the door or announcing themselves as police officers, said officers attempted to enter Plaintiffs apartment, at which time Plaintiff grabbed his gun to protect himself and turned on the lights....
2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 4306
Although the May 23, 2005 incident ended uneventfully, the officers returned to Plaintiff’s apartment the following night and asked Plaintiff to go down to the police station to discuss what had happened the night before. Plaintiff complied with their request and voluntarily went to the police station. Although Plaintiff was not placed under arrest, he was led to a holding cell.
(op. 2-4, Docket Entry No. 117 (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff has submitted a sworn statement indicating that while at the Hackensack Police Station on May 24, 2005, he had the following exchange with Defendant and four other police officers:
I stated to officers I don’t know what lies you people have told but you want get away with this, they started laughing as they turned the corner and I overheard a voice state, “listen guys I don’t want to be involved in this, I don’t want this on my conscience, another voice was heard saying it was to late now he’s going down for this, as well someone said there going to be a lawsuit because of this and someone responded by saying who going to believe him, then more laughing was heard....
(Pl.’s AtE #1 ¶ 14(d), Docket Entry No. 229-4).
Also on May 24, 2005, Defendant filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff for
aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10, Docket Entry No. 229-1; Def.’s Resp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10, Docket Entry No. 234-2; Def.’s Resp. to
Pl.’s Interrog. No. 15, Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 239). Defendant based the criminal complaint on the events of May 23, 2005. (Def ‘5 Resp. to P1.’ s Interrog. No. 15). According to Defendant, he knocked on Plaintiffs door, announced himself as a police officer, and was greeted by Plaintiff pointing a gun at him. (Id.). Plaintiff denies that Defendant knocked on his door and announced
himself as a police officer. (Pl.’s Aff. #2 ¶ 1, Docket Entry No. 243). Plaintiff also denies
opening his door and pointing a gun at Defendant. (Id.) Eventually, the criminal complaint
3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 4307
against Plaintiff was dismissed in October 2007. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11; Def.’s Resp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶
ii). II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all reasonable inferences in the non movant’ s favor, there exists no “genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make “a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court must, however, consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Pennsylvania Coal Ass ‘n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995). If a reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party regarding material disputed factual issues, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242-43 (“At the summary judgment stage, the trial judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”). III. DISCUSSION
The Court begins by reiterating that there is one claim at issue here—a § 1983 malicious
prosecution claim against Defendant Aiellos—and two motions before this Court: (1) Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and (2) Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court will first address Defendant’s motion and then turn to Plaintiffs motion.
4

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 4308
A. Defendant Aiellos’s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment In support of his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Aiellos contends that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that he did not maliciously prosecute Plaintiff. (See Def. Br. 3-10, Docket Entry No. 234-1). In the alternative, Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 10-14). The Court addresses each of Defendant’s contentions in turn.
1. Whether There is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Concerning Defendant Aiellos’s Alleged Malicious Prosecution of Plaintiff
Defendant Aiellos contends that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that he did
not maliciously prosecute Plaintiff. (See Ed. at 3-10). A plaintiff basing a § 1983 claim on an
allegedly malicious prosecution must establish: (I) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in the plaintiffs favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the defendants acted maliciously or for purposes other than bringing plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding.
Agarwal v. City ofJersey City, 388 F. App’x 199, 202 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 186 (3d Cir. 2009) (enbanc)).
Here, it is undisputed that three out of the above five elements are met. First, it is undisputed that Defendant instituted a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff—Defendant filed a
criminal complaint against Plaintiff on or about May 24, 2005. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10; Def.’s Resp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10). Second, it is undisputed that by virtue of Plaintiff having been taken into
physical custody after the filing of said claim, Plaintiff was deprived of liberty consistent with
the concept of seizure. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 13; see Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 35, Docket Entry No. 234-
5

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 4309
2).’ Third, it is undisputed that the criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiff’s favor—
Defendant acknowledges this point in his brief. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11; Def. Resp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶
11; Def. Br. 5). Thus, to prevail on his cross-motion for summary judgment, Defendant must show that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact suggesting that Defendant either (1) initiated the proceeding without probable cause or (2) acted maliciously or for purposes other than bringing Plaintiff to justice.
a. Whether Defendant Aiellos Initiated the Proceeding Without Probable Cause
“The proper inquiry in a section 1983 claim based on. . . misuse of the criminal process is not whether the person arrested in fact committed the offense but whether the arresting officers had probable cause to believe the person arrested had committed the offense.” Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Probable cause exists when “at the time of the arrest, the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are ‘sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.’” United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197, 1205 (3d Cir. 1984) (quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91(1964)). In this regard, the Third Circuit has explained that probable cause:
[1]s a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual context—not readily, or even usually, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. While probable cause to arrest requires more than mere suspicion, the law recognizes that probable cause determinations have to be made on the spot under pressure and do not require the fine resolution of conflicting evidence that a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance standard demands. A common sense approach [must be taken] to the issue of probable cause and a determination as to its existence must be based on the totality of the circumstances. Paffv. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). ‘See DiBella v. Borough ofBeachwood, 407 F.3d 599, 603 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Pretrial custody and some onerous
types of pretrial, non-custodial restrictions constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”).
6

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 4310
On May 24, 2005, Defendant Aiellos filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff alleging
violations of N.J.S.A. § 2C:12-lb(9) and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. (Sicheri Deci., Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 234-6). Under N.J.S.A. § 2C:12-lb(9), “[a] person is guilty of aggravated assault if he...
[k]nowingly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, points or displays a firearm. . . at or in the the direction of a law enforcement officer. . .
Under N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-4a, “[a]ny person who has in his possession any firearm with a purpose
to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another” is guilty of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant lacked probable cause because “[t]here is no dispute that plaintiff pointed a gun at defendant “ (Def. Br. 9). To the contrary, Plaintiff disputes this fact in a sworn affidavit that states: “plaintiff Donnel Prince denies that on the night of 5/23/05 that defendant Aiellos knocked on my apartment door and announced himself as a police officer, further deny plaintiff opened the door and pointed a
handgun at defendant.” (P1.’s Aff. #2 ¶ 1). It is not this Court’s role to decide whose account is
more credible. See Merkle Upper Dublin School Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Generally, the question of probable cause in a section 1983 damage suit is one for the jury. This is particularly true where the probable cause determination rests on credibility conflicts.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Based on Plaintiff’s sworn affidavit, a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant did not knock on Plaintiffs door or announce himself as a police officer prior to the alleged encounter. Based on this same affidavit, a reasonable jury could also conclude that Plaintiff did not point a gun at Defendant. Viewing these facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in favor of Plaintiff, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant acted without probable cause in filing the criminal complaint
7

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 4311
against Plaintiff. If the jury believes Plaintiff’s account of the events that took place on May 23, 2005—namely, that Defendant Aiellos did not announce himself as an officer and that Plaintiff did not point a gun at Defendant—then Defendant may have acted without probable cause in filing the criminal complaint against Plaintiff. Cf United States v. Butler, 405 F. App’x 652, 659-60 (3d Cir. 2010) (“It is undisputed that Butler opened the door voluntarily. . . . [and] pointed a gun at Officer Cruz. At that point.. . Officer Cruz.. . . had probable cause to believe that Butler had committed aggravated assault by pointing a pistol at him. . . .“); see also United States v. Epps, 613 F.3d 1093, 1099-1100 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding that Deputy Kent had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the felonies of aggravated assault and aggravated assault upon a peace officer when, “[a]fter announcing his presence and directing Mr. Epps to stop, Deputy Kent saw Mr. Epps pointing a pistol at him from about ten feet away, which made the officer fear for his own safety.”); see generally Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709, 717 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Pointing a gun at an officer in a manner that creates a substantial danger of injury clearly establishes probable cause for the charge of threatening or attempting to intimidate an officer. . . .“); United States v. Richards, 937 F.2d 1287, 1290 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[Alt the moment that Richards pointed the gun at officer Creshaw’s chest, the two officers had probable cause to arrest him for assaulting a police officer with a dangerous weapon.”). The Court next addresses whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant acted maliciously when all of the facts and their reasonable inferences are considered in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
b. Whether Defendant Aiellos Acted Maliciously or For Purposes Other Than Bringing Plaintiff to Justice
To establish a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant
“acted maliciously or for purposes other than bringing plaintiff to justice. . . .“ Agarwal, 388 F. App’x at 202 (quoting Kossler, 564 F.3d at 186). In New Jersey, malice “is defined as the
8

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 4312
intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or e2 xcuse.” LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62, 93-94 (N.J. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted). It is “well-settled” in New Jersey “that malice may be inferred from want of probable cause.” Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit Union, 199 N.J. 381, 395 (N.J. 2009) (citation and quotation omitted). To permit the making of such an inference, however, Plaintiff is required to “produce at least some extrinsic evidence of malice.” Brunson, 199 N.J. at 396 (citation and quotation omitted).
Defendant Aiellos contends that he did not maliciously file the criminal complaint against Plaintiff and raises two arguments in support of his contention. First, Defendant argues that there is no dispute that Plaintiff pointed a gun at him. (Def. Br. 6). As discussed above, there are issues of fact in dispute as to whether Plaintiff pointed a gun at Defendant. This argument is therefore unavailing.
Second, Defendant argues that there is no dispute that before May 23, 2005, he did not know Plaintiff personally, did not know of Plaintiff, nor did he know anything related to Plaintiff’s alleged desire to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in a case involving his former attorneys. (Id. at 5). Defendant’s argument ignores the possibility that Defendant could have developed malice towards Plaintiff on the date of the incident, May 23, 2005, and that said malice could have motivated Defendant’s decision to file a criminal complaint against Plaintiff the following day. Cf Lippay, 996 F.2d at 1503 (noting that a police officer could have malice in the form of ill-will or spite against someone he never met). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments on the element of malice, based on the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that there are issues of fact in dispute as to whether the element of
2 The interpretation of the common law element of malice in a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim is informed by
state law. See Lippay v. Christos, 996 F.2d 1490, 1502 (3d Cir. 1993) (applying the Pennsylvania definition of
malice in a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim). 9

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 4313

malice is met. See generally Brunson, 199 N.J. at 395-96 (noting that malice maybe inferred from the absence of probable cause when a plaintiff produces at least some extrinsic evidence of malice).

As previously held, based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable jury could find that Defendant lacked probable cause in filing the criminal complaint against Plaintiff. Beyond the potential absence of probable cause, Plaintiff has submitted a sworn statement indicating that he had the following exchange with Defendant and four other police officers when they walked by him in the Hackensack Police Station on May 24, 2005:

I stated to officers I don’t know what lies you people have told but you want get away with this, they started laughing as they turned the corner and I overheard a voice state, “listen guys I don’t want to be involved in this, I don’t want this on my conscience, another voice was heard saying it was to late now he’s going down for this, as well someone said there going to be a lawsuit because of this and someone responded by saying who going to believe him, then more laughing was heard

(Pl.’s Aff. #1 ¶ 14(d)). A reasonable jury could infer from Plaintiff’s statement in this regard that
at least one of the officers was reluctant to be involved in the arrest of Plaintiff because he thought it was improper. Thus, considering this exchange in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and when viewed in conjunction with the potential absence of probable cause, a reasonable jury could infer that Defendant’s decision to file a criminal complaint against Plaintiff was motivated by a purpose other than bringing Plaintiff to justice. See, e.g., Williams v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 760 (7th Cir. 2013) (“To defeat summary judgment, plaintiff. . . was not required to ‘clearly prove’ the lack of probable cause or to come forward with evidence that would require the court to infer malice. He was required to come forward only with evidence that would permit a finding of no probable cause and permit a reasonable inference of malice.”).

2.

Whether Defendant Aiellos is Entitled to Qualified Immunity

10

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 4314
Defendant Aiellos contends that this Court should in any event grant summary judgment
in his favor because he is entitled to qualified immunity. “To obtain qualified immunity in a §
1983 action premised on malicious prosecution, a police officer must show his actions were objectively reasonable under prevailing Fourth Amendment doctrines.” Davis v. Malitzki, 451 F. App’x 228, 232-33 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)). The availability of qualified immunity to an officer hinges on two questions. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). The first question—the constitutional question—is “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (internal citations omitted); Southerland v. Pa., 389 F. App’x 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2010). The second question—the qualified immunity question—is “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (citation omitted); Southerland, 389 F. App’x at 170. If the answer to either question is no, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Davis, 451 F. App’x at 232 (“If the official can show at least one prong was not met, he will be deemed to meet the standards necessary to qualify for immunity.”) (citations omitted). The Court may consider these questions in either order. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.
As discussed above, Plaintiff has produced evidence, including sworn affidavits, upon
which a jury could reasonably conclude that the five elements of his § 1983 malicious
prosecution claim are met. Critically, the Court found that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant acted without probable cause in filing the criminal complaint against Plaintiff. In other words, the Court has concluded that there are material issues of fact in dispute as to whether Defendant’s actions—in filing a criminal complaint against Plaintiff—
11

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 4315
violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. It naturally follows that the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, whether a constitutional violation has occurred for purposes of assessing Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity until such time as the foregoing factual issues are resolved by the jury. For example, based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable jury could agree with Plaintiff’s version of the events that took place and thus determine that Defendant fabricated the facts underlying the criminal complaint or otherwise lacked probable cause when initiating the criminal proceeding against Plaintiff. Because a reasonable officer would understand that such conduct violates the clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution, Defendant might not, under those circumstances, be entitled to qualified immunity. Molina v. City ofLancaster, 159 F. Supp. 2d 813, 820 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (“[Tjhe right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, falsifying documents, and malicious prosecution is clearly established.”) (citing Orsatti, 71 F.3d at 484); cf United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638, 649 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[T]he idea of a police officer fabricating facts. . . in order to obtain probable cause is quite obviously repugnant to the Fourth Amendment.”). Certainly, the Court cannot make this legal determination—which, in this case, hinges on questions of fact—at this time. Monteiro v. City ofElizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 405 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of fact, those issues must be determined by the jury.”) (citations omitted); see also Curly v. Kiem, 298 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he existence of disputed, historical facts material to the objective reasonableness of an officer’s conduct will give rise to a jury issue.”) (citations omitted). This aspect of Defendant’s motion is therefore denied without prejudice to the re-raising of same at the time of trial. See, e.g., Curley v. Kiem, 499 F.3d 199, 212 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2007) (“When the ultimate question of the objective reasonableness of an officer’s behavior involves tightly intertwined issues of fact and law, it may
12

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 246 Filed 12/20/13 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 4316
be permissible to utilize a jury in an advisory capacity. . . but responsibility for answering that ultimate question remains with the court.”); Apata v. Howard, No. 05-3204, 2008 WL 4372917, *13 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2008) (“When key historical facts are disputed, the Court is obliged to defer a decision on qualified immunity until a more appropriate juncture, possibly with the assistance of an advisory jury.”).
B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his claim of malicious prosecution. The genuine disputes of material fact discussed throughout this opinion—whether Defendant Aiellos knocked on Plaintiff’s door and announced himself as a police officer, whether Plaintiff pointed a gun at Defendant, and whether Defendant and his fellow officers had a conversation from which a reasonable jury could infer that Defendant’s decision to file a criminal complaint against Plaintiff was motivated by a purpose other than bringing Plaintiff to justice—prevent this Court from granting summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. When all reasonable inferences are drawn in Defendant’s favor, a reasonable jury could agree with Defendant’s version of the events that took place and could thus conclude that Defendant acted with probable cause and/or lacked malice in filing the criminal complaint against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. DATED: ‘1of December, 2013
JbSE L. LINARES U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 13

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 250 Filed 01/17/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 4332

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OFNEW JERSEY

DONELL L. PRINCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS, badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Civil Action No.: 2:09-cv-5429 (JLL-JAD)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from that portion of the Opinion and Order of the Honorable Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J., dated December 20, 2013, and entered on December 23,2013, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and will request that the Court assert pendent jurisdiction over any claims that may be inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the qualified immunity issues. Copies of the Opinion and Order are annexed hereto.

Dated: Roseland, New Jersey January 17,2014

CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC

By: s/William A. Sicheri WILLIAM A. SICHERI (WAS-2702) Attorneys for Defendant SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 400 Roseland, NJ 07068 (973) 618-9770

 
 Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 4504
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________
No. 14-1149 ____________
DONELL L. PRINCE
v.
SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS, badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; DET. W. INGLIMA, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack;
DET. A. GUTIERREZ, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack;
DET. A. FERRAOILI, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack;
LT. LEE, Nurse, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack;
LT. PLUNKETT, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; OFFICER C. TOOMEY, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; OFFICER T. GERVASI, badge #218, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; OFFICER J. GERVASI, B.C.I. Division, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; SGT. A. TREZZA, badge #242, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; CAPTAIN WALSH, Internal Affairs, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack; HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOE MEMBER(S) OF HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT; COURT ADMINISTRATOR JANICE BEHNKE, individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff; ELIZABETH P., Deputy Court Administrator, individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff;
BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK; JOHN DOE MEMBER(S) OF BERGEN COUNTY JAIL STAFF,
individually and as members of Bergen County Jail; E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D. Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY UNIT D1, part of Bergen County Jail, individually

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 4505
and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center and/or Bergen County Jail Staff; BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN DOE MEMBERS BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER STAFF; E. FAHEY, MA., manager/Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc., individually and as member of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. Staff; CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC; BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR;
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JOHN DOE MEMBER(S) OF N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF; CITY OF HACKENSACK
Sgt. Thomas Aiellos, Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 09-cv-05429)
District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares ____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 21, 2014
Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 2, 2014)
____________
OPINION* ____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
2

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 4506
Thomas Aiellos filed this interlocutory appeal from an order of the District Court denying his motion for summary judgment. We will affirm.
I On the night of May 23, 2005, Aiellos, then a sergeant with the Hackensack Police Department, was on patrol with his partner when they spotted a wanted man. The two chased the man onto the grounds of an apartment building, where they lost him. While searching the area, Aiellos noticed that the door to the apartment of Appellee Donell Prince was ajar. At this point, the parties’ versions of the facts diverge sharply. According to Aiellos, he knocked on the door and announced that he was a police officer before he set foot in Prince’s apartment. At that point, Prince opened the door and immediately pointed a handgun at him. Aiellos says Prince acted “paranoid and odd” and had to be coaxed to put the weapon down. Returning to the police station later that night, Aiellos claims he spoke with his supervisor, who told him to arrest Prince and file a criminal complaint against him for aggravated assault/threatening a police officer and possessing a weapon for an unlawful purpose. Aiellos returned to Prince’s apartment the following night with several officers, arrested Prince, took him to the police station, and subsequently filed a criminal complaint against him. Aiellos says he later learned that Prince had been taken to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation because of his behavior while in custody.
3

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4507
According to Prince, there was neither a knock on the door nor an announcement of police presence; there was simply an illegal entry. Prince says he was sitting in his apartment that night working on an appeal in another lawsuit against the City of Hackensack and its police department when several officers, including Aiellos, barged in “causing a [sic] incident and creating a very dangerous situation for all concerned.” App. 176. Prince then grabbed his legally-owned handgun to protect himself and never pointed it at or displayed it in the direction of anyone. Prince claims he was bullied and threatened by the officers. Specifically, he says one of the officers threatened to arrest him if he did not “shut-up,” and that Aiellos, in particular, told him that he “better stop thinking that people or [sic] out to get [him] before [he] find[s] out what someone out to really get [him] could do[.]” App. 176. The following night, according to Prince, Aiellos and several other officers returned and told him to come down to the police station to discuss what had happened the previous night, but they never arrested him or put him in handcuffs. Prince says that after he arrived at the station, he was placed in a cell for nineteen hours, during which time he was ridiculed and repeatedly told he was not under arrest and therefore had no right to a lawyer. Prince was charged with aggravated assault/threatening a police officer and possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose, but those charges were ultimately dismissed with prejudice in 2007.
After the charges against him were dismissed, Prince filed a pro se complaint against Aiellos and other members of the Hackensack Police Department. The only claim
4

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 4508
remaining in this action is Prince’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution claim against Aiellos. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the District Court denied. Aiellos filed this interlocutory appeal claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity.
II Although our jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders denying qualified immunity is well established, we review only legal questions to determine whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 & n.9 (1985). We have no power at this stage to review genuine disputes of fact or sufficiency of the evidence. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 319 (1995); Ziccardi v. City of Phila., 288 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir. 2002).
A As the District Court noted, the crux of the parties’ dispute at summary judgment was whether Prince could establish the following two elements of his malicious prosecution claim: whether Aiellos brought his criminal complaint against Prince without probable cause and whether Aiellos acted maliciously or for a purpose other than pursuing justice. The District Court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Aiellos brought a criminal complaint against Prince without probable cause. This conclusion is borne out by our brief review of the facts, which show that Prince and
5

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 4509
Aiellos have offered irreconcilable versions of what occurred at the doorway of Prince’s apartment on the night of May 23, 2005. As it was required to do in light of the procedural posture of the case, the District Court accepted as true Prince’s version of the facts, namely, that Aiellos entered without knocking or announcing and that Prince grabbed a gun in self-defense and never pointed it at anyone.1 The fact that Aiellos offered a very different version of the facts—and one that would well support a criminal complaint against Prince—is unavailing to Aiellos at this stage because the decision as to which version of the facts to believe is, as the District Court held, a task for the jury. See Merkle v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Generally, the question of probable cause in a section 1983 damage suit is one for the jury. This is particularly true where the probable cause determination rests on credibility conflicts.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Aiellos claims that the disputes over whether the police knocked and announced and whether Prince aimed the gun at him are immaterial to the issue of probable cause. In his view, the probable cause inquiry should turn instead on whether the totality of facts and circumstances known at the time were sufficient to warrant suspicion in the mind of a
1 Under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:12-1b(9), a person is guilty of aggravated assault if he “[k]nowingly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, points or displays a firearm . . . at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer[.]” Under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-4a(1), a person is guilty of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose if he “has in his possession any firearm with a purpose to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another[.]”
6

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 4510
reasonable officer that Prince had committed, or was committing, an offense. See Aiellos Br. 19. Fair enough, but in order to determine whether the circumstances surrounding the encounter between Aiellos and Prince would have raised suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer that Prince was committing aggravated assault or possessing a weapon for an unlawful purpose, we would need to answer the same question that is in dispute: did Aiellos and the officers barge in unannounced, causing Prince to grab his gun in selfdefense; or did Prince recklessly aim a gun at Aiellos and the officers, even though they had announced themselves at the door? We have no jurisdiction to resolve this factual dispute in an interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313 (holding that a finding of genuine issue of fact was not a “final decision” and therefore not immediately appealable).
Aiellos also argues that the District Court erred as a matter of both law and fact in its interpretation of New Jersey’s aggravated assault statute. Aiellos Br. 17–18. Aiellos contends that aggravated assault can be established not only by pointing a gun directly at a police officer, but also by displaying it in the general direction of that officer. Id. at 18; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:12-1b(9); see also supra note 1. This wrongly assumes that there is no dispute that Prince displayed a gun at him. In fact, Prince alleged that he grabbed his gun, turned on the lights, and looked around the corner to see who was there. Prince did not admit, as Aiellos suggests, that he ever displayed the gun in the direction of another.
7

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 4511
Here again, Aiellos mistakenly asks us to review the record in the light most favorable to him, not Prince.
B Aiellos also argues that the District Court erred in holding that material facts remain in dispute as to whether he acted with the requisite malice. We disagree. As the District Court noted, “malice” is defined as “the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse.” LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62, 93–94 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Malice can be inferred from “want of probable cause,” provided the plaintiff “produce[s] at least some extrinsic evidence” of that malice. Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit Union, 199 N.J. 381, 395–96 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having concluded that the District Court did not err in holding that material facts are in dispute regarding probable cause, it follows that malice on the part of Aiellos remains an open question. Aiellos claims the record “unequivocally shows” that he did not act with malice in filing the criminal complaint and that this is demonstrated by the fact that the District Court failed to cite any evidence that he acted with malice. Aiellos points to his affidavit, which states he did not have or develop malice and did not know who Prince was at the time. He then criticizes Prince’s affidavit for being too conclusory, and makes the formalistic argument that the District Court relied inappropriately on a section of Prince’s affidavit that referenced the pleadings, and was therefore improper evidence. Yet again,
8

Case 2:09-cv-05429-JLL-JAD Document 270-2 Filed 12/24/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 4512 Aiellos’s argument is based on his version of the facts in derogation of the contrary version offered by Prince. IV For the reasons stated, we will affirm.
9

 
 Alerts not yet Supported for this Docket

PRETRL,PROSE,RULE16,SCHEDO

U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-05429-JMV-JSA

PRINCE v. AIELLOS et al Assigned to: Judge John Michael Vazquez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen Case in other court: 3d Cir. USCA, 14-01149 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 10/23/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mediator
PATRICK D. TOBIA TERMINATED: 10/22/2018

represented by PATRICK D. TOBIA GORDON & REES 18 OOLUMBIA TURNPIKE SUITE 220 FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932 973-549-2553 Fax: 973-377-1911 Email: ptobia@grsm.com TERMINATED: 10/31/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DONELL L. PRINCE

represented by DONELL L. PRINCE P.O. BOX 1024 HACKENSACK, NJ 07602-1024 862-290-4537 Email: prince.donell@yahoo.com PRO SE

V.
Defendant
SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack

represented by LUCINDA JORDAN MCLAUGHLIN CALLAHAN & FUSCO LLC 103 EISENHOWER PARKWAY SUITE 400 ROSELAND, NJ 07068 973-618-9770

Email: lucinda.mclaughlin@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MITCHELL RYAN AYES CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 72 EAGLE ROCK AVENUE SUITE 320 EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936 (973) 618-9770 Email: mayes@callahanfusco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REID HARLAN EDER SMITH MAZURE DIRECTOR WILKINS YOUNG & YAGERMAN, P.C. 111 John Street New York, NY 10038 2129647400 Email: reder@smithmazure.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM AUGUST ANTHONY SICHERI CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 72 EAGLE ROCK AVENUE EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936 (973) 618-9770 Fax: (973) 618-9772 TERMINATED: 11/06/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
XAVIER A. NUNEZ CALLAHAN & FUSCO LLC 103 EISENHOWER PARKWAY SUITE 400 ROSELAND, NJ 07068 973-618-9770 Email: xanunesq@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DET. W. INGLIMA individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010

CHAD LEE KLASNA CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 72 EAGLE ROCK AVENUE SUITE 320 EAST HANOVER, NJ 07936 (973) 618-9770 TERMINATED: 11/06/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER SMITH DEL BOVE CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 103 EISENHOWER PARKWAY SUITE 400 ROSELAND, NJ 07068 973-618-9770 Email: cdelbove@callahanfusco.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE D. LUBIN CALLAHAN & FUSCO LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Suite 400 Roseland, NJ 07068 973-618-9770 Fax: 973-618-9772 Email: jlubin@callahanfusco.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VINCENT L GALASSO ATTORNEY AT LAW 139 MAIN STREET HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 (201) 343-7570 Email: vlgalasso@optonline.net TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE Law Offices of Richard Malagiere, P.C. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD MALAGIERE, P.C. 250 Moonachie Road, Suite 102

Defendant
DET. A. GUTIERREZ individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
DET. A. FERRAOILI individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
LT. LEE individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
LT. PLUNKETT individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
OFFICER C. TOOMEY individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
OFFICER T. GERVASI badge #218, individually and as police officer in Police Department,

Moonachie, NJ 07074 201-440-0675 Fax: 201-440-1843 Email: rm@malagierelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by VINCENT L GALASSO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by VINCENT L GALASSO (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
OFFICER J. GERVASI B.C.I. Division, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack
Defendant
SGT. A. TREZZA badge #242, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
CAPTAIN WALSH Internal Affairs, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT TERMINATED: 10/13/2010
Defendant
JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
COURT ADMINISTRATOR JANICE BEHNKE individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff
Defendant
ELIZABETH P. Deputy Court Administrator, individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant

represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT TERMINATED: 10/13/2010 Defendant BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK TERMINATED: 04/23/2010
Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY JAIL STAFF individually and as members of Bergen County Jail TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Defendant E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D. Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center TERMINATED: 12/22/2010

represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KAREN BOE GATLIN BRESLIN AND BRESLIN, P.A. 41 MAIN STREET HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 (201) 342-4014 Fax: 201-342-0068 Email: KGatlin@breslinandbreslin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KENNETH HAYES Law Offices of Hayt, Hayt, & Landau, LLC Meridian Center 1 Two Industrial Way West P.O. Box 500 Eatontown, NJ 07724-0500 (732) 544-9080 Fax: (732) 389-1756 Email: khayes@haytlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK STEWART KUNDLA HARDIN, KUNDLA, MCKEON AND POLETTO 673 MORRIS AVENUE PO BOX 730 SPRINGFIELD, NJ 07081-0730 (973) 912-5222 Email: mkundla@hkmpp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY UNIT D1 part of Bergen County Jail, individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center and / or Bergen County Jail Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER TERMINATED: 04/23/2010
Defendant
GAIL PIETRSLA individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
STERLING M.D. individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
MOHAMMAD MALLICK M.D. individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
PUUDIMAMUTHXUDA M.D. individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant
JOHN DOE MEMBERS BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER STAFF TERMINATED: 12/22/2010

represented by KENNETH HAYES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant E. FAHEY, MA. Manager / Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc., individually and as member of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. Staff TERMINATED: 04/23/2010
Defendant CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC. TERMINATED: 04/23/2010
Defendant BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT TERMINATED: 09/13/2010
Defendant BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR (S) STAFF individually and as members of Bergen County Prosecutors Office TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Defendant

represented by GEORGE A. PRUTTING , JR. PRUTTING & LOMBARDI 701 SOUTH WHITE HORSE PIKE AUDUBON, NJ 08106 (856) 547-8404 Email: esq@pruttinglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEORGE A. PRUTTING , JR. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WAYNE JOHN POSITAN LUM, DANZIS, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC 103 EISENHOWER PARKWAY ROSELAND, NJ 07068-1049 (973) 403-9000 Email: wpositan@lumlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Defendant BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION TERMINATED: 10/13/2010
Defendant PROSECUTOR OSTONI OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Cross Claimant E. FAHEY, MA. Manager / Psychiatric Screener of Care Plus New Jersey Inc., individually and as member of Care Plus New Jersey Inc. Staff TERMINATED: 04/23/2010 Cross Claimant

represented by BRIAN FLANAGAN OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL RJ HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET PO BOX 116 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0116 (609) 292-6116 Fax: (609) 633-8702 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V. NICOLE LANGFITT OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL R.J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET PO BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625 (609) 777-3410 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEORGE A. PRUTTING , JR. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC. TERMINATED: 04/23/2010

represented by GEORGE A. PRUTTING , JR. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack Cross Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Cross Defendant COURT ADMINISTRATOR JANICE BEHNKE individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff Cross Defendant BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK TERMINATED: 12/22/2010 Cross Defendant BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT TERMINATED: 09/13/2010
Cross Defendant BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION TERMINATED: 10/13/2010
Cross Defendant

represented by XAVIER A. NUNEZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KAREN BOE GATLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V. NICOLE LANGFITT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER TERMINATED: 04/23/2010
Cross Defendant
DET. A. FERRAOILI individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY UNIT D1 part of Bergen County Jail, individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center and / or Bergen County Jail Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
OFFICER J. GERVASI B.C.I. Division, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack
Cross Defendant
OFFICER T. GERVASI badge #218, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack
Cross Defendant
DET. A. GUTIERREZ individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant

represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT TERMINATED: 10/13/2010
Cross Defendant HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT TERMINATED: 10/13/2010
Cross Defendant DET. W. INGLIMA individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY JAIL STAFF individually and as members of Bergen County Jail TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR (S) STAFF individually and as members of Bergen County Prosecutors Office TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant JOHN DOE MEMBERS BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STAFF TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
LT. LEE individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
MOHAMMAD MALLICK M.D. individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
ELIZABETH P. Deputy Court Administrator, individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
GAIL PIETRSLA individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
LT. PLUNKETT individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
PROSECUTOR OSTONI OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
PUUDIMAMUTHXUDA M.D. individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center

represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D. Resident in Psychiatry, Bergen Regional Medical Center TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant
STERLING M.D. individually and as member of Bergen Regional Medical Center Staff TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant OFFICER C. TOOMEY individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant SGT. A. TREZZA badge #242, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Defendant CAPTAIN WALSH Internal Affairs, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
Cross Claimant BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK TERMINATED: 12/22/2010
V. Cross Defendant SGT. THOMAS AIELLOS badge #221, individually and as

represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KAREN BOE GATLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by XAVIER A. NUNEZ (See above for address)

police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack
Cross Defendant
COURT ADMINISTRATOR JANICE BEHNKE individually and as member of Hackensack Municipal Court Staff

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD MALAGIERE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/23/2009
10/23/2009 02/09/2010 02/11/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against J. GERVASI, A. TREZZA, WALSH, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, JANICE BEHNKE, ELIZABETH P., HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY JAIL STAFF, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D., FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY UNIT D1, BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, GAIL PIETRSLA, STERLING M.D., MOHAMMAD MALLICK M.D., PUUDIMAMUTHXUDA M.D., JOHN DOE MEMBERS BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER STAFF, E. FAHEY, MA., CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., THOMAS AIELLOS, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR (S) STAFF, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF, W. INGLIMA, A. GUTIERREZ, A. FERRAOILI, LEE, PLUNKETT, C. TOOMEY, T. GERVASI ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 358776.) Jury Demand. No Summons Attached., filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ld, ) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
2 Civil Cover Sheet with attached exhibits by Donnell Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
3 Consent & Registration form to receive documents electronically by DONELL L. PRINCE (nr, ) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to THOMAS AIELLOS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JANICE BEHNKE, BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR, BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, A. FERRAOILI, J. GERVASI, T. GERVASI, A. GUTIERREZ, HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, LEE, MOHAMMAD MALLICK M.D., ELIZABETH P., GAIL PIETRSLA, PLUNKETT, PUUDIMAMUTHXUDA M.D., E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.,

02/16/2010 02/18/2010
02/23/2010 02/23/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 03/01/2010 03/12/2010

STERLING M.D., C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, WALSH with answer to complaint due within 21 days. (Summons Mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff) (ld, ) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT jury demand, filed by DONELL L. PRINCE.(nr, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/17/2010: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (nr, ). (Entered: 02/17/2010)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: DONELL L. PRINCE, does not have a correct e-mail address listed with the court and is not receiving his/her notices of electronic filing in this case. Pursuant to local rule 10.1 and court procedures, counsel and unrepresented parties are required to notify the court of any mailing or e-mail address changes. The court has deleted the invalid e-mail address. Attorneys should review the ECF link on our web site for information on maintaining your account and unrepresented parties, or those attorneys without access to maintaining their account, should notice the Clerk. (sa, ) Modified on 2/18/2010 (sa, ). (Entered: 02/18/2010)
6 SUMMONS on amended complt. ISSUED as to BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION, PROSECUTOR OSTONI OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE with answer to complaint due within 21 days. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File. Motion set for 4/5/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
7 Letter withdrawning the consent and registration form filed on 2/9/2010 (nr, ) (Entered: 02/27/2010)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by DONELL L. PRINCE. CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC. waiver sent on 1/15/2010, answer due 3/16/2010; E. FAHEY, MA. waiver sent on 1/15/2010, answer due 3/16/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/27/2010)
9 MOTION for Extension of Time to served summons and amended complt. by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 letter)(nr, ) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
10 ANSWER to Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against THOMAS AIELLOS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JANICE BEHNKE, BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION, BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR, BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, A. FERRAOILI, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY UNIT D1, J. GERVASI, T. GERVASI, A. GUTIERREZ, HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF

03/12/2010 03/22/2010 03/23/2010
03/23/2010 03/23/2010

BERGEN COUNTY JAIL STAFF, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR (S) STAFF, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN DOE MEMBER (S) OF N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF, JOHN DOE MEMBERS BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER STAFF, LEE, MOHAMMAD MALLICK M.D., ELIZABETH P., GAIL PIETRSLA, PLUNKETT, PROSECUTOR OSTONI OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE, PUUDIMAMUTHXUDA M.D., E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D., STERLING M.D., C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, WALSH by E. FAHEY, MA., CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC.. (PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
12 LETTER ORDER directing the parties to submit their estimates of the time needed to complete discovery not later than 04/07/10, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 3/22/10. (nc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DONELL L. PRINCE. ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY served on 2/24/2010, answer due 3/17/2010; BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK served on 3/5/2010, answer due 3/26/2010; BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT served on 3/3/2010, answer due 3/24/2010; BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR served on 3/3/2010, answer due 3/24/2010; PROSECUTOR OSTONI OF BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE served on 3/5/2010, answer due 3/26/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
14 Summons Returned Unexecuted by DONELL L. PRINCE as to BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, MOHAMMAD MALLICK M.D., PUUDIMAMUTHXUDA M.D.. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DONELL L. PRINCE. THOMAS AIELLOS served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; JANICE BEHNKE served on 3/11/2010, answer due 4/1/2010; BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; A. FERRAOILI served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; J. GERVASI served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; A. GUTIERREZ served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT served on 2/24/2010, answer due 3/17/2010; HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; W. INGLIMA served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; LEE served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; ELIZABETH P. served on 3/8/2010, answer due 3/29/2010; E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D. served on 3/9/2010, answer due 3/30/2010; C. TOOMEY served on 3/8/2010, answer due

03/24/2010 03/25/2010
03/30/2010
03/30/2010
03/30/2010
03/30/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010

3/29/2010; A. TREZZA served on 2/24/2010, answer due 3/17/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
15 Letter from Kenneth Hayes, Esq.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
17 Bergen County Jail ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, CROSSCLAIM against THOMAS AIELLOS, JANICE BEHNKE by BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (Attachments: # 1 Statement, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certification, # 4 Certificate of Service)(LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Motion set for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Motion reset for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
19 Certified mail return receipt (nr, ) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by KENNETH HAYES on behalf of BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
21 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In support of motion to dismiss)(HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
22 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
23 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(nr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Motion set for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

04/05/2010
04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010
04/07/2010 04/07/2010

Set Deadlines as to 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer, 21 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
24 LETTER ORDER directing the pltf. to move for default and default judgment within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 04/05/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
26 Letter from Counsel for Bergen County Jail re 21 MOTION to Dismiss, 22 MOTION to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Certificate of Service)(GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
27 ANSWER to Crossclaim of Bergen County Jail in City of Hackensack by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
28 ORDER granting pltf's 9 Motion for Extension of Time to serve summons and complt.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 04/06/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
34 Letter from Donell L. Prince advising the Court that he intends on filing an amended complt. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by KENNETH HAYES on behalf of BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration In support of motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 21 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The Declarations Doc. Nos. 22 & 23 filed by K. HAYES on 4/5/2010 was submitted incorrectly as a Motion. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE Declaration USING Declaration. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
31 DECLARATION re 21 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
32 DECLARATION re 21 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

04/07/2010
04/08/2010 04/08/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010
04/13/2010 04/15/2010 04/16/2010 04/23/2010
04/26/2010 05/04/2010 05/04/2010

Set Deadlines as to 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Motion set for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
33 Letter re 12 Order, Set/Clear Flags. (GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
35 Letter. (LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
36 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Letter)(nr, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 36 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Motion set for 5/3/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
37 LETTER ORDER directing the pltf. to move for default judgment within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 04/13/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
38 Letter from Kenneth Hayes, Esq.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
39 Letter from George A. Prutting, Jr. re 21 MOTION to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
40 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss the amended compl. as to Bergen Regional Medical Center, Bergen County Jail, E. Fahey and Care Plus NJ, Inc; denying pltf's 36 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 04/23/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
41 Certification in opposition to motion to dismiss by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(nr, ) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
42 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - KENNETH HAYES has designated as confidential materials and restricted access to the #42 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion filed on 5/4/10. This document does not appear to be the subject of a motion or order. Please submit a certification stating that this document is to be marked Confidential Material or that this document's access was restricted in error. Please be advised, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3, you must file a motion for leave to have a document sealed. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

05/06/2010
05/06/2010 05/07/2010 05/07/2010
05/07/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/12/2010

43 MOTION to Dismiss by LEE. Responses due by 5/24/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Certification Of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Brief Of Counsel, # 8 Certificate of Service, # 9 Text of Proposed Order, # 10 Notice of Motion)(MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 43 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 6/7/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
44 Letter from Vincent L. Galasso, Esq.. (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
45 MOTION granting relief from a judgment or order by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification Donell L. Prince)(nr, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2010: # 2 Exhibit) (nr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2010: # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (nr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2010: # 7 Text of Proposed Order) (nr, ). (Entered: 05/07/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 45 MOTION granting relief from a judgment or order. Motion set for 6/7/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
46 Joint MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P12(b)(6) by THOMAS AIELLOS. Responses due by 6/7/2010 (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
47 Letter from Vincent L. Galasso re 46 Joint MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P12(b)(6). (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
48 ORDER extending deft. Bergen Regional Medical Center's time to answer to 6/10/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 05/10/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
49 ORDER extending deft. Superior Court of New Jersey's time to answer for a period of 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 05/10/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 46 Joint MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P12(b)(6). Motion set for 6/7/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
50 BRIEF in Opposition re 45 MOTION granting relief from a judgment or order filed by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/13/2010 05/14/2010 05/19/2010 05/20/2010 05/20/2010 05/20/2010 05/20/2010
05/25/2010 06/03/2010 06/04/2010 06/07/2010 06/08/2010

51 Letter from Counsel for Bergen County Jail. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Certificate of Service)(GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 MOTION granting relief from a judgment or order filed by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
53 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 46 Joint MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P12(b)(6), 45 MOTION granting relief from a judgment or order, 43 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
54 MOTION for leave to file an amend complt. by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(nr, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 54 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion set for 6/21/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (Attachments: # 1 Certification Certification of Michael F. Nestor, Esq., # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Motion set for 6/21/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/22/2010)
56 LETTER ORDER granting pltf's request for an automatic extension on dispositive motion; motion now returnable on 6/21/2010. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 05/24/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
57 NOTICE of Appearance by RICHARD MALAGIERE on behalf of W. INGLIMA (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
58 BRIEF in Opposition re 54 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B, # 2 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
59 Letter from Donnell L. Prince in opposition to defts. motion to dismiss (nr, ) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
62 Certification in support of leave to amend complt. on behalf of DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

06/08/2010 06/08/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010
06/09/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010
06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010

63 Summons Returned Unexecuted by DONELL L. PRINCE as to GAIL PIETRSLA, STERLING M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(nr, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
64 SUMMONS Returned Executed on Lt. Plunket & Internal Affairs Captain Walsh by certified mail by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) Modified on 6/10/2010 (nr, ). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
60 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Brief, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
61 First MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Brief in Support of Notice of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Certification Certification of Elizabeth Y. Moon, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 61 First MOTION to Dismiss, 60 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 7/6/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
65 Letter from Kenneth Hayes, Esq.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
66 Letter from Counsel for Bergen County Jail. (GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
67 BRIEF in Opposition re 54 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
68 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 43 MOTION to Dismiss filed by JANICE BEHNKE, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION, J. GERVASI, T. GERVASI, HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, LEE, ELIZABETH P., PLUNKETT, C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, WALSH. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
69 Letter from Donell L. Prince in response to the letter dated June 3, 2010 regarding motion to dismiss (nr, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
70 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 61 First MOTION to Dismiss, 60 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
71 RESPONSE to opposition to pltf's motion to amend complt.by Donell Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)

06/22/2010 07/07/2010 07/08/2010 07/12/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010
07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/20/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010

72 ORDER granting Bergen Prosecutor Defts. motion for extension of time to answer to 7/12/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 06/21/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
74 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DONELL L. PRINCE. ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY served on 6/11/2010, answer due 6/25/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/10/2010)
73 Certification in opposition to defts' motion to dismiss on behalf of DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/10/2010)
75 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
76 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
77 BRIEF in Support re 61 First MOTION to Dismiss filed by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Certificate of Service)(POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
78 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 60 MOTION to Dismiss filed by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
79 ORDER denying 43 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 46 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 54 Motion to file an amended complt.; denying 60 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 61 Motion to Dismiss; granting pltf's motion to vacate this Court's April 23, 2010 order;. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 07/12/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
80 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DONELL L. PRINCE. on 2/24/2010 on Hackensack Municipal Court (nr, ) (Entered: 07/17/2010)
81 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting that his papers filed filed on 7/7/2010 be accepted one day late (nr, ) (Entered: 07/17/2010)
82 Request for Default by DONELL L. PRINCE against E. Shiffman, M.D. for fialure to appear (nr, ) (Entered: 07/17/2010)
Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to E. SHIFFMAN (mn, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by MARK STEWART KUNDLA on behalf of E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D. (KUNDLA, MARK) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
84 NOTICE by E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D. OF MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(KUNDLA, MARK) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

07/22/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 08/06/2010 08/11/2010
08/11/2010 08/11/2010

CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The #84 NOTICE filed by MARK KUNDLA on 7/22/10 was submitted incorrectly as a NOTICE. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENT USING MOTIONS (SEE CATEGORY: MOTIONS AND RELATED FILINGS). This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
85 MOTION to Vacate DEFAULT AND TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD by E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(KUNDLA, MARK) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 85 MOTION to Vacate DEFAULT AND TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD. Motion set for 8/16/2010 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
87 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against THOMAS AIELLOS, BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK, A. FERRAOILI, T. GERVASI, A. GUTIERREZ, HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, LEE, PLUNKETT, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D., C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, filed by DONELL L. PRINCE.(nr, ) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
86 Second MOTION to Dismiss by JANICE BEHNKE, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION, J. GERVASI, T. GERVASI, HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, LEE, ELIZABETH P., PLUNKETT, C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, WALSH. Responses due by 8/23/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion, # 2 Brief Brief, # 3 Certification Certification of Counsel, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit Certification of Service, # 11 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit E)(MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
88 Second MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Brief)(LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
89 MOTION to Dismiss by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. Responses due by 8/23/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Counsel, # 2 Brief, # 3 Exhibit A & B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D & E, # 6 Text of Proposed Order, # 7 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 08/11/2010)

08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010
08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/13/2010
08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010

90 Letter from Joseph P. Kreoll. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
91 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. Responses due by 8/23/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Certification, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 86 Second MOTION to Dismiss, 89 MOTION to Dismiss, 88 Second MOTION to Dismiss, 91 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 9/7/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
92 MOTION to Dismiss by BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK. Responses due by 8/23/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion, # 2 Certification, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Brief, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 92 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 9/7/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
93 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mario Gallego, # 2 Declaration of Ken Hayes, Esq., # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Ken Hayes, Esq., # 4 Brief)(HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
94 Second MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by THOMAS AIELLOS. Responses due by 9/7/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Motion Cover Sheet, # 2 Certification Certification, # 3 Certificate of Service Certification of filing)(GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
95 Second MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by A. FERRAOILI. Responses due by 9/7/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Motion Cover Sheet, # 2 Certification, # 3 Certificate of Service)(GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
96 Second MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by A. GUTIERREZ. Responses due by 9/7/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Motion Cover Sheet, # 2 Certification, # 3 Certificate of Service)(GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 94 Second MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 93 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Motion set for 9/7/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/18/2010)

08/19/2010
08/23/2010 08/23/2010
08/30/2010 08/31/2010 08/31/2010 09/07/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/10/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010

97 ORDER vacating entry of default entered against Erica Schiffman, M.D.; extending deft. Erica Schifman's time to file an answer to 8/30/2010. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 08/16/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
98 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 94 Second MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 92 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
99 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 88 Second MOTION to Dismiss, 91 MOTION to Dismiss, 89 MOTION to Dismiss, 93 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 86 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
102 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting the Court to extend his time to file a late opposition (nr, ) (Entered: 09/06/2010)
100 ORDER on informal application granting pltf's request to extend the return date on motion to dismiss to 9/20/2010. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 08/30/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
101 ORDER on informal application granting pltf's request to adjourn the motion to dismiss to 9/20/2010. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 08/30/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
104 Certification in oppositon to defts. motions to dismiss on behalf of DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(nr, ) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
103 Letter from Joseph Kreoll. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
111 Exhibit to Re 104 Certification in opposition to motion to dismiss by pltf. Donell Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
105 Letter from George Prutting re 89 MOTION to Dismiss. (PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
106 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 88 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
107 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 91 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Reply Brief on behalf of Defendants, Bergen County Prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni, and John Doe member(s) of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Staff, in further support of their Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Certificate of Service Certification of Service)(POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

09/13/2010
09/13/2010 09/14/2010 09/20/2010 09/22/2010 09/22/2010
09/22/2010 09/24/2010
10/12/2010 10/12/2010

108 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 93 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
110 LETTER ORDER resetting deadlines on motion to dismiss; no further extension will be granted.. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 09/10/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
109 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 92 MOTION to Dismiss filed by BERGEN COUNTY JAIL IN CITY OF HACKENSACK. (GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
114 Certification in opposition to motion by DONELL L. PRINCE Re 94 Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(nr, ) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
112 Letter from Richard Malagiere. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
113 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 86 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by JANICE BEHNKE, J. GERVASI, T. GERVASI, HACKENSACK MUNICIPAL COURT, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, ELIZABETH P., C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, WALSH. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
115 Letter from Kenneth Hayes. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
116 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 89 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Unreported Case (Davis), # 2 Supplement Unreported Case (Little), # 3 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
117 OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/08/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
118 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 88 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 91 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 93 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing defts' Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage, Municipal Division, the Hackensack Municipal Court and the Hackensack Police Department; granting pltf. leave to amend his conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and equal protection claims; pltf. shall file the third amended complt. by 10/29/2010, etc.. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/08/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

10/27/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/11/2010 11/11/2010 11/15/2010 11/16/2010 11/17/2010
11/17/2010 11/22/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010

119 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defts., filed by DONELL L. PRINCE.(nr, ) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
120 Letter from Joseph P. Kreoll, Esq.. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
121 Letter from Counsel for Bergen County Jail re 118 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 119 Amended Complaint, 117 Opinion. (GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
122 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. Responses due by 11/29/2010 (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 11/11/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 122 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. Motion set for 12/6/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/13/2010)
123 Letter from Michael F. Nestor, Esq. on behalf of Defendants, Bergen County Prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Nicholas Ostuni and John Doe Member(s) of the Bergen County Prosecutor's staff. (POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
124 Letter from Vincent L. Galasso. (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
125 MOTION to Dismiss by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. Responses due by 12/6/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Certification, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Supplement Unreported case, # 5 Supplement Unreported case, # 6 Supplement Unreported case, # 7 Text of Proposed Order, # 8 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 125 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 12/20/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
126 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 122 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, 125 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
127 First MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint of Pro Se Plaintiff by THOMAS AIELLOS. Responses due by 12/20/2010 (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
128 First MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint of Pro Se Plaintiff by A. GUTIERREZ. Responses due by 12/20/2010 (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010
12/01/2010 12/06/2010 12/10/2010 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/22/2010 12/22/2010
12/29/2010

129 First MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint of Pro Se Plaintiff by A. FERRAOILI. Responses due by 12/20/2010 (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
130 Letter from Vincent L. Galasso. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Certificate of Service)(GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
131 ORDER advising the parties that the Court will consider docket entry numbers 120, 121, 123 & 124 as informal requests for dismissal of the third amended complt.,. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 11/29/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 127 First MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint of Pro Se Plaintiff. Motion set for 1/3/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
132 LETTER ORDER granting pltf's request adjourning the motion to dismiss to 12/20/2010. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 11/30/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
134 Letter from Donell L. Prince in opposition to defts. motion to dismiss (nr, ) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
133 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 122 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint filed by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
135 Letter. (POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
136 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 125 MOTION to Dismiss filed by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
137 OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/21/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
138 ORDER granting 122 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 125 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 127 Motion to Dismiss as to all defts. except defts. Janice Behnke and Sergeant Thomas Aiellos; this matter will proceed as to the pltf's claim of malicious prosecution against deft. Sergeant Thomas Aiellos, and pltf's equal protection claim against deft. Janice Behnke; etc.. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/21/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
139 MOTION to Dismiss by JANICE BEHNKE. Responses due by 1/24/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Certification, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Filing Letter, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/29/2010
01/03/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011
01/25/2011 02/07/2011 02/07/2011 02/08/2011
02/09/2011 02/10/2011
02/14/2011 02/14/2011

Set Deadlines as to 139 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion set for 2/7/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/01/2011)
140 ANSWER to Amended Complaint Third Amended Complaint by THOMAS AIELLOS.(GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
141 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 139 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
142 Request for Default by DONELL L. PRINCE against Attorney General for failure to appear with attached return of service (nr, ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
143 MOTION to Stay of this action and to appeal informa pauperis by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(nr, ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
Set Deadlines as to 143 MOTION to Stay. Motion set for 2/22/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
144 LETTER ORDER granting pltf's request to reschedule motion to dismiss to the next motion date of 2/22/2011. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 01/25/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
148 Letter from Donell L. Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 02/13/2011)
149 CERTIFICATION in Opposition re 139 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/13/2011)
145 BRIEF in Opposition re 143 MOTION to Stay filed by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Index Table of Contents and Citations, # 2 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
146 RESPONSE in Opposition re 143 MOTION to Stay filed by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
147 Letter from counsel for defendant Bergen County Jail re 145 Brief in Opposition to Motion, 146 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
150 Letter from Joseph P. Kreoll, Esq.. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
151 Letter from Vincent Galasso. (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/15/2011 02/15/2011 02/22/2011
02/23/2011 03/22/2011
03/23/2011 03/31/2011 04/05/2011 05/12/2011
05/23/2011 07/11/2011 08/15/2011 11/03/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011

152 NOTICE of Appearance by BRIAN G. FLANAGAN on behalf of BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION (FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
153 Letter from Brian Flanagan, Deputy Attorney General. (FLANAGAN, BRIAN) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
155 ORDER granting deft. Behnke's 139 Motion to Dismiss the complt; this matter will proceed solely as to pltf's claim of malicious prosecution against deft. Thomas Aiellos. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 02/22/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
154 ORDER denying pltf's 143 Motion to Stay this matter pending appeal and denying pltf's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 02/22/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
156 LETTER ORDER directing the parties to submit their estimates of the time needed to complete discovery not later than 4/5/11, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 3/22/11. (nic, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
157 Letter from Vincent L. Galaasso. (GALASSO, VINCENT) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
158 Return Receipt of copies of order served on Donell L. Prince on 3/24/11. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
159 Letter from Donnell L. Prince in response to letter dated 3/22/2011 (nr, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
160 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/7/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 11/23/2011. Proposed Final Pretrial Order due by 1/20/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 5/12/11. (nic, ) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
161 Return Receipt of service of copy of scheduling order served on Donell Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
162 Substitution of Attorney - Attorney VINCENT L GALASSO terminated. Attorney CHAD LEE KLASNA for THOMAS AIELLOS added.. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Magistrate Judge C. C. Cecchi no longer assigned to the case. (jl, ) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
163 Letter. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
165 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting an extension of time to complete discovery (nr, ) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
166 MOTION to Stay this matter by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

11/04/2011
11/04/2011 11/07/2011
11/09/2011 11/11/2011 11/11/2011 11/14/2011 11/15/2011 11/16/2011
11/17/2011
11/17/2011 11/21/2011 11/22/2011

Set Deadlines as to 166 MOTION to Stay. Motion set for 12/5/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
167 MOTION for Reconsideration of order dated 10/8/2011 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
164 TEXT ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/21/2011 at 10:30 a.m. with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Defense counsel shall initiate the call to 973-776-7860. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 11/7/11. (jqb) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
168 BRIEF in Opposition re 167 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, E. SCHIFFMAN, M.D.. (HAYES, KENNETH) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
169 BRIEF in Opposition re 167 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by THOMAS AIELLOS. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
170 RESPONSE to Motion re 166 MOTION to Stay filed by THOMAS AIELLOS. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
171 Letter from Counsel for Bergen County Jail re 168 Brief in Opposition to Motion, 167 MOTION for Reconsideration. (GATLIN, KAREN) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
172 RESPONSE in Opposition re 167 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR. (POSITAN, WAYNE) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
173 BRIEF in Opposition re 167 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by CARE PLUS NEW JERSEY INC., E. FAHEY, MA.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A - C, # 3 Certificate of Service)(PRUTTING, GEORGE) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
174 BRIEF in Opposition re 167 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by JANICE BEHNKE, J. GERVASI, T. GERVASI, HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT, W. INGLIMA, LEE, ELIZABETH P., PLUNKETT, C. TOOMEY, A. TREZZA, WALSH. (MALAGIERE, RICHARD) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
175 BRIEF in Opposition re 167 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL DIVISION. (LANGFITT, V.) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/21/2011. (Placed on the record/ECR) (jqb) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
176 ORDER on informal application extending discovery; Telephone Status Conference set for 1/24/2012 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael

11/29/2011 01/24/2012 02/08/2012 02/08/2012
02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012
02/29/2012 04/02/2012 04/04/2012 04/09/2012 04/12/2012 04/23/2012 05/22/2012

A. Hammer., Fact Discovery due by 2/20/2012.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 11/21/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
177 LETTER OPINION AND ORDER denying pltf's 166 Motion to Stay; denying pltf's 167 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 11/29/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/24/2012. (Placed on the record/ECR) (jqb) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
178 MOTION for leave to file an amended complt. by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 178 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion set for 3/5/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
179 Letter from Donell L Prince regarding request for interrogatories (nr, ) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
180 MOTION for leave to Amend the complt. and stay discovery by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification)(nr, ) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 180 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion set for 3/19/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
181 ORDER terminating pltf's 178 Motion to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 2/28/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
182 ORDER setting a briefing schedule on motion to amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 4/2/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
183 Letter re 179 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
185 Certified Mail Receipt Returned sent to DONELL L. PRINCE (nr, ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
184 RESPONSE in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 180 MOTION to Amend/Correct (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
186 RESPONSE to opposition by pltf. Donnell Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
187 OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 5/22/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

05/22/2012 05/24/2012 05/25/2012 05/29/2012 06/05/2012 06/05/2012 06/07/2012 06/08/2012
06/11/2012
06/11/2012

188 ORDER denying pltf's 180 Motion for leave to amend the complt. and stay discovery; directing the parties to meet and confer by June 4, 2012, they shall file a joint status report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 5/22/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
189 Certified Mail Receipt Returned sent to DONELL L. PRINCE (nr, ) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
190 Letter from Chad L. Klasna, Esq.. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
191 LETTER ORDER granting deft's request to extend the time to file a joint status report to 6/13/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 5/29/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
193 MOTION pursuant to Rule 72(a) by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification)(nr, ) Modified on 6/11/2012 (jr). (Entered: 06/08/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 193 Appeal of Magistrate Judge decision to District Court. Motion set for 7/2/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
192 STATUS REPORT by THOMAS AIELLOS. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
194 TEXT ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 6/14/2012 at 10:30 a.m. with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Defense counsel will kindly initiate the call to 973-776-7860. Please mark your calendars accordingly. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 6/8/2012. (jqb) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
195 Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/21/11, before Judge MICHAEL A. HAMMER. Court Reporter/Transcriber KING TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES/SARA L. KERN ((973) 237-6080). Tape Number: TELECONFERENCE. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 7/2/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/12/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/10/2012. (ma) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
196 Transcript of Proceedings held on 01/24/2012, before Judge MICAHEL A. HAMMER. Court Reporter/Transcriber KING TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES/ SARA L. KERN ((973) 237-6080). Tape Number: TELECONFERENCE. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 7/2/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for

06/11/2012 06/11/2012 06/11/2012 06/14/2012 06/14/2012
07/10/2012
07/11/2012 07/12/2012 07/12/2012 07/12/2012
07/12/2012 07/24/2012
07/30/2012 07/30/2012

7/12/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/10/2012. (ma) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
197 Supplemental Certification of Donell L. Prince in support of motion pursuant to Rule 72.1(a). (nr, ) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
198 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting a tape/CD recording copy of telephone status conference of 1/24/2012 (nr, ) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
199 Letter from Donell L. Prince in response to the order of 5/22/2012 (nr, ) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/14/2012. (Placed on the record/ECR) (jqb) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
200 ORDER on informal application advising that discovery is now closed; on or before 7/12/2012, the parties shall file a joint letter addressing their respective positions on whether either party will seek to introduce expert testimony regarding pltf's claim against deft. Sgt. Thomas Aiellos for malicious prosecution, etc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 6/14/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
201 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying pltf's motion for leave to file an amended complt. and stay discovery. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 7/10/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
202 STATUS REPORT by THOMAS AIELLOS. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
203 Letter from Donell L. Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
204 MOTION pursuant to Rule 201 & 56 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement)(nr, ) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 204 MOTION pursuant to Rule 201 & 56. Motion set for 8/6/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
205 Exhibit to 204 Motion pursuant to Rule 201 & 56 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
206 ORDER denying pltf's 204 Motion pursuant to Rule 201 & 56; schedulilng a telephone status conference for 9/28/2012 at 10:30a.m.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 7/24/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
207 Letter from Donell L. Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
208 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting a copy of tape/Cd recording of telephone status conference dated 1/24/2012 (nr, ) (Entered: 08/02/2012)

08/06/2012 08/06/2012
08/09/2012 08/24/2012 09/07/2012
09/17/2012 10/04/2012 10/05/2012
10/05/2012 10/26/2012
11/05/2012
11/05/2012 12/06/2012
12/11/2012

209 MOTION for Reconsideration of order dated 10/11/12 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 209 MOTION for Reconsideration. Motion set for 9/4/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
210 BRIEF in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 209 MOTION for Reconsideration (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
211 ORDER denying pltf's 209 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 8/23/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/26/2012)
Reset Hearing: The Telephone Status Conference set for 9/28/2012 has been adjourned to 10/31/2012 at 2:00 p.m. with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Defense counsel will kindly initiate the call to 973-7767860. Please mark your calendars accordingly. (jqb) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
212 Certified Mail Receipt Returned sent to DONELL L. PRINCE (nr, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
213 MOTION for Reconsideration of orders dated 5/22/2012, 10/11/2012, 8/23 & 24 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
Set Deadlines as to 213 MOTION for Reconsideration. Motion set for 11/5/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
214 Letter. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
215 TEXT ORDER: The telephone conference scheduled for October 31, 2012, is adjourned. The Court will notify the parties of a new date for the conference. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 10/26/2012. (MAH) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
216 TEXT ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/11/2012 at 12:30 p.m. with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Defense counsel will kindly initiate the call to 973-776-7860. Please mark your calendars accordingly. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 11/5/2012. (jqb) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
217 ORDER denying pltf's 213 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 11/5/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
Reset Hearing: The Telephone Status Conference set for 12/11/2012 has been adjourned to 1/11/2013 at 12:00 p.m. with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Defense counsel shall mail a copy of this Notice to Donell Prince via overnight mail. (jqb) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
218 Letter from Donell Prince. (jqb) (Entered: 12/11/2012)

12/11/2012 01/11/2013 01/11/2013
02/13/2013 02/15/2013
02/19/2013 03/18/2013 03/28/2013
04/12/2013 04/17/2013
05/23/2013 05/23/2013

219 Letter from Donell Prince regarding telephone conference (nr, ) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/11/2013. (Placed on the record/ECR) (jqb) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
220 ORDER on informal application advising the pltf. that any motion for leave to submit an expert report/expert testimony, or for appointment of expert, shall be filed on or before 2/8/2013, etc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 1/11/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
221 MOTION to request Court appointed expert witnesses by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification)(nr, ) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
Set Deadlines as to 221 MOTION for Court appointed expert witnesses. Motion set for 3/18/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
222 RESPONSE in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 221 MOTION for Court appointed expert witnesses (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
223 ORDER denying pltf's 221 Motion to grant court-appointed expert witness, with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 3/18/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
224 TEXT ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 5/8/2013 at 12:00 p.m. with Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Defense counsel will kindly initiate the call to 973-776-7860. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 3/28/2013. (jqb) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson added. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer no longer assigned to case. (ak, ) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: The parties are advised that the telephone Status Conference set for 5/8/13 has been rescheduled to 5/23/2013 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. Counsel for defendant is to initiate the call to 973-645-2580. Thank you. (nm, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/23/2013. (Recorder/ECR) (nm, ) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
225 TEXT ORDER: Following the telephone status conference on 5/23/13, it is hereby ordered that defendant shall file its dispositive motion by 7/1/13.Plaintiff may either file its dispositive motion by 7/1/13, or crossmove for summary judgment against defendant in accordance with the rule of Court. The parties shall file opposition and reply papers in accordance with the applicable rules of Court, unless additional time is

06/28/2013 07/01/2013 07/02/2013 07/03/2013 07/09/2013 07/09/2013 07/12/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/30/2013 08/01/2013

requested, in writing, from the Court. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 5/23/13. (nm, ) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
226 Letter from Defendant Aiellos. (KLASNA, CHAD) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
227 ORDER granting Deft Aiellos request for a 30 day extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 7/1/13. (jd, ) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
228 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 exhibits 1-5, # 2 exhibits 6-10 14&15, # 3 affidavit of Donell L. Prince, # 4 affidavit of Donell L. Prince re: documents/records, # 5 statement of material facts)(sr, ) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
Set Deadlines as to 228 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion set for 8/5/2013 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (sr, ) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
229 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Statement of Material Fact, # 2 Statement of Material Fact, # 3 Amended Affidavit, # 4Amended Affidavit)(nr, ) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
Set Deadlines as to 229 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion set for 8/5/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
230 Letter from Donell L. Prince amending his motions filed on 7/1/2013 (nr, ) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
231 ORDER withdrawing 228 Motion for Summary Judgment and administratively terminating motion; motion (229) is the operative motion; etc.. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 7/17/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
RESET Deadlines as to 229 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion set for 8/19/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
232 Rule 7.1(d)(5) Letter for an automatic extension of the return date of a dispositive motion re 229 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
233 LETTER ORDER granting deft. Aiello's request to adjourn the motion for summary judgment to 9/3/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 7/31/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/02/2013 08/20/2013
08/20/2013 08/30/2013 09/04/2013 09/24/2013 10/01/2013 10/10/2013 10/23/2013 11/13/2013

Set Deadlines as to 229 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion set for 9/3/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
234 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by THOMAS AIELLOS. Responses due by 8/27/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support and in Opposition, # 2 Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Declaration of Counsel, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Text of Proposed Order, # 10 Certificate of Service)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
Set Deadlines as to 234 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion set for 9/3/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
235 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting that the motion for summary judgment by adjourned to 10/7/2013 (nr, ) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
236 ORDER denying pltf's request to strike deft's cross motion; granting pltf's request to adjourn the motions for summary judgment; Motions for summary judgment will be returnable on 10/7/2013 and setting briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 9/4/2013. (nr, ) Modified on 9/4/2013 (nr). (Entered: 09/04/2013)
237 RESPONSE in Opposition filed by DONELL L. PRINCE re 234 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Statement)(nr, ) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
238 ORDER directing defense counsel to submit to the Court the deposition of pltf. and deft. Aiellos; in addition defense counsel shall submit to the Court copies of all answers to interrogatories submitted by both pltf. and deft. Aiellos on or before 10/21/2013, etc.. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 9/30/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
239 Letter from Donnell L. Prince in response to the order filed on 10/01/2013 (nr, ) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
240 ORDER directing the pltf. to submit evidence to support the two factual assertions discussed in paragraph number 5 on or before 11/13/2013. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/23/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
241 AMENDED STATEMENT of Material Facts by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(nr, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)

11/13/2013 11/13/2013 11/13/2013 12/13/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 01/02/2014
01/16/2014 01/16/2014
01/17/2014
01/27/2014 01/27/2014 01/28/2014

242 Letter from Donell L. Prince in response to order filed on 10/23/2013 (nr, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
243 AFFIDAVIT of Donell L. Prince (nr, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
244 AMENDED COUNTER-STATEMENT by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
245 Letter from Donell Prince inquiring as to the status of his case. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
246 OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/20/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
247 ORDER denying pltf's 229 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying deft's 234 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/20/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
248 TEXT ORDER: The parties are advised that an in-person settlement conference has been scheduled for Thursday, January 30, 2014 at 2:30pm in Newark - Courtroom 2D before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. Counsel for the Defendant to advise Pro Se Plaintiff of the date and time of this settlement conference. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 1/2/14. (nm, ) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
249 MOTION to Amend or make additional findings and/or grant relief from judgment by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification)(nr, ) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
Set Deadlines as to 249 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion set for 2/18/2014 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
250 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 247 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 246 Opinion by THOMAS AIELLOS. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0312-5459093. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. Appeal Record due by 1/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Opinion, # 2 Exhibit Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
251 USCA Case Number 14-1149 for 250 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by THOMAS AIELLOS. USCA Case Manager Tonya (Document Restricted - Court Only) (Tonya) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
252 Letter from Defendant AIELLOS re 248 Order,. (SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
253 TEXT ORDER: Per the request of counsel, the in person settlement conference scheduled for 1/30/14 has been rescheduled to 3/18/14 at 2:00

02/04/2014 02/19/2014 03/11/2014 03/12/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/27/2014
03/28/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014

p.m. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 1/28/14. (nm, ) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
254 BRIEF in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 249 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
255 ORDER denying 249 Motion for miscellaneous relief from the Court's 12/20/2013 order. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 2/18/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
256 Letter from Donell L. Prince inquiring as to the motion for summary judgment, etc. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
257 LETTER ORDER directing the Clerk's Office to resend to pltf. order No. 255. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 3/12/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Settlement Conference held on 3/18/2014. (nm, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
258 MOTION for Reconsideration by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Exhibit)(nr, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
Set Deadlines as to 258 MOTION for Reconsideration. Motion set for 4/21/2014 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
259 MOTION to Stay Trial and All Proceedings by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Declaration of William A. Sicheri, Esq., # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Text of Proposed Order, # 7 Certificate of Service)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
Set Deadlines as to 259 MOTION to Stay Trial and All Proceedings. Motion set for 4/21/2014 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
260 BRIEF in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 258 MOTION for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Certificate of Service)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
261 Rule 7.1(d)(5) Letter for an automatic extension of the return date of a dispositive motion re 259 MOTION to Stay Trial and All Proceedings. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/08/2014)

04/09/2014 04/09/2014
04/09/2014 04/21/2014 04/24/2014 04/28/2014 05/07/2014 12/02/2014 12/08/2014
12/22/2014 12/22/2014

262 LETTER ORDER granting pltf's request to adjourned deft's motion for injunction and resetting briefing scheudule. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/9/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
263 ORDER adjourning return date on 259 MOTION to Stay Trial and All Proceedings. Motion set for 5/5/2014 before Judge Jose L. Linares, with responses due by 4/21/14. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/9/14. (jr) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - Please note the Order 263 entered by the Clerk's office on 4/9/14 is a duplicate of entry 262 . (jr) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
264 CERTIFICATION in Opposition filed by DONELL L. PRINCE re 259 MOTION to Stay Trial and All Proceedings (nr, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
265 ORDER denying pltf's 258 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 2/24/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
266 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 259 MOTION to Stay Trial and All Proceedings (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
267 ORDER granting deft's 259 Motion to Stay pending interlocutory appeal. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 5/5/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
268 USCA JUDGMENT as to 250 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by THOMAS AIELLOS, AFFIRMED. Costs taxed against Appellant. (Tonya) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
269 TEXT ORDER: The parties are advised that an in-person settlement conference has been scheduled for January 09, 2015 at 2:00 PM in Newark- Courtroom 2D before Magistrate Judge A. Dickson. Party representatives with full settlement authority, including pro se Plaintiff Donnell L. Prince, are required to appear. The parties may submit confidential settlement position statements, of no more than 5 pages, by fax (973-645-4549) at least 48 hours prior to the conference.SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 12/8/14. (nm, ) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
271 MOTION to Amend or make additional factual findings by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(nr, ) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
Set Deadlines as to 271 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion set for 1/20/2015 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/24/2014 12/29/2014
12/30/2014 12/31/2014 01/05/2015
01/12/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015
02/04/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015

270 MANDATE of USCA as to 250 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Mandate Letter, # 2 Opinion)(ca3tmk) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
Pursuant to Local Rule 79.4, notice is hereby given of the Appellate ruling filed on 12/24/2014. In the event that the mandate or judgment provides for costs or directs a disposition other than an affirmance, the prevailing party shall prepare and submit an order implementing the mandate or judgment. (ek) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
272 Letter from Defendant Aiellos. (SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
273 BRIEF in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 271 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(SICHERI, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
274 TEXT ORDER: Per the request of counsel, the in person settlement conference scheduled for 1/9/15 has been adjourned to 2/26/15 at 2:30 p.m. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 1/5/15. (nm, ) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
275 ORDER denying pltf's 271 Motion to Amend or make additional factual findings. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 01/05/2015. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
276 APPLICATION to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS on Appeal by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
277 MOTION for Reconsideration of order filed on 1/12/2015 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
Set Deadlines as to 277 MOTION for Reconsideration. Motion set for 3/2/2015 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
278 ORDER denying 277 Motion for Reconsideration; denying application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 2/4/2015. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Settlement Conference held on 2/26/2015. (nm, ) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
279 TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff shall submit a proposed final pretrial order to Defendants by 04/13/15 for review. Defendants shall then submit a proposed final pretrial order to Plaintiff by 05/28/15 for review. The entire package shall be filed with this Court on or before 06/04/15. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 2/26/15. (nm, ) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

03/19/2015 03/19/2015 03/25/2015 05/21/2015
05/28/2015 06/24/2015 06/26/2015 07/10/2015 10/05/2015 10/07/2015
11/16/2015 11/16/2015

280 Consent & Registration Form to receive documents electronically by DONELL L. PRINCE (nr, ) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
281 Letter from Donell Prince regarding a text order that was filed on 2/26/2015 (nr, ) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
282 LETTER ORDER granting pltf's request to extend the deadline to submit of the proposed final pretrial Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 3/24/2015. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 283 MOTION to Stay. Motion set for 7/6/2015 before Judge Jose L. Linares. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
283 MOTION to temporary Stay for 30-60 days by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
284 NOTICE of Appearance by JESSE D. LUBIN on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS (Attachments: # 1 Withdrawal of Counsel)(LUBIN, JESSE) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
285 Letter from Donell L. Prince. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Final Pretrial Order, # 2 Exhibit)(anr) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
286 ORDER denying as moot 283 Motion to Stay this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 7/13/2015. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
287 Proposed Pretrial Order by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(nr, ) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
288 TEXT ORDER - An in-person status conference is scheduled for 11/16/15 at 11:15 a.m. in Newark, Courtroom 2D, before Magistrate Judge Dickson. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 10/7/15. (nm, ) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Status Conference held on 11/16/2015. (CD #ECR.) (nm, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
289 TEXT ORDER - As discussed with the parties on the record during the conference on this date, Plaintiff shall provide defense counsel with a revised draft of the final pretrial order on or before 11/20/15. On or before 12/11/15, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with proposed changes to that final pretrial order, in redline format. Plaintiff shall thereafter provide Defendant with his response to those suggested revisions and Defendant shall file the parties' joint, proposed final pretrial order by 12/18/15. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/16/15. (nm, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/17/2015
11/17/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015 12/11/2015 12/15/2015
01/05/2016 01/07/2016
01/19/2016

290 AMENDED TEXT ORDER - The Text Order dated 11/16/15, (ECF No. 289), is hereby amended as follows: "As discussed with the parties on the record during the conference on this date, Plaintiff shall provide defense counsel with a revised draft of the final pretrial order on or before 11/20/15. On or before 12/11/15, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with proposed changes to that final pretrial order, in redline format. Plaintiff shall thereafter provide Defendant with his response to those suggested revisions and Defendant shall file the parties' joint, proposed final pretrial order by 12/22/15." So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/17/15. (nm, ) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
291 NOTICE of Rule 26 Disclosure by DONELL L. PRINCE (nr, ) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
292 Letter from Lucinda McLaughlin. (MCLAUGHLIN, LUCINDA) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
293 NOTICE of Appearance by LUCINDA JORDAN MCLAUGHLIN on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS (MCLAUGHLIN, LUCINDA) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
294 Order referring action to Mediation and Appointing Mediator, PATRICK D. TOBIA appointed. Mediation session will take place at 9:30A.M. on 12/10/2015, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 12/2/2015. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
295 Letter from Lucinda McLaughlin. (MCLAUGHLIN, LUCINDA) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
296 TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter dated 12/11/15. (ECF No. 295). Per Defendant's request, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with proposed changes (in redline format) to Plaintiff's draft of the proposed final pretrial order on or before 1/15/16. Plaintiff shall thereafter provide Defendant with his response to those suggested revisions and Defendant shall file the parties' joint, proposed final pretrial order by 1/29/16. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 12/15/15. (nm, ) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
297 Letter from Reid H. Eder, Esq.. (EDER, REID) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
298 TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter dated 1/05/16. (ECF No. 297). Per Defendant's request, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with proposed changes (in redline format) to Plaintiff's draft of the proposed final pretrial order on or before 1/29/16. Plaintiff shall thereafter provide Defendant with his response to those suggested revisions and Defendant shall file the parties' joint, proposed final pretrial order by 2/12/16. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 1/7/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
299 NOTICE of Appearance by REID HARLAN EDER on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS (EDER, REID) (Entered: 01/19/2016)

02/04/2016 02/08/2016 02/10/2016
02/10/2016 02/12/2016 03/02/2016 03/15/2016 03/15/2016 03/18/2016
03/23/2016 03/23/2016

300 Letter from Donell L. Prince regarding final pretrial Order (nr, ) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
301 Letter from Reid H. Eder. (EDER, REID) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
302 TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of the parties' recent letters re: their proposed forms of final pretrial order. (ECF Nos. 300 and 301). The undersigned will conduct an in-person status conference re: these issues on 3/2/16 at 3:00 p.m. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 2/10/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
303 Letter from Donell Prince regarding Rule 16 conference (nr, ) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
304 Proposed Pretrial Order by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit List, # 3 Letter)(EDER, REID) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Status Conference/Final Pretrial Conference held on 3/2/2016. (CD #ECR.) (nm, ) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
305 Letter from Donell L. Prince re Pretrial Order (nr, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
306 Proposed Pretrial Order by DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
307 Transcript of Status Conference Proceedings held on March 2, 2016, before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. Transcriber: KLJ Transcription Service (201) 703-1670. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 4/8/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2016. (mfr) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
308 Letter from Reid H. Eder, Esq.. (EDER, REID) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
309 TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's recent filings, (ECF Nos. 305 and 306), and Defendant's letter dated 3/23/16. (ECF No. 308). The parties shall appear in the courtroom of the undersigned for a meet and confer session regarding the proposed form of final pretrial order in this matter (as discussed during the conference on 3/2/16) on 4/5/16 at 10:00 a.m. Following that meet and confer session, the Court will address Plaintiff's proposed motions in limine, as well as a deadline for the parties to submit a completed form of joint proposed final pretrial order for the Court's consideration. The parties are advised that, at this stage, the deadline for submission of all motions in limine remains 6/15/16. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 3/23/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

03/29/2016
03/31/2016 04/04/2016 04/20/2016
04/20/2016 05/16/2016 05/17/2016 05/17/2016
05/18/2016 05/19/2016

310 TEXT ORDER - To clarify its Order dated 3/23/16, the Court notes that the parties should come to the meet and confer session scheduled for 4/5/16 prepared to discuss both their proposed stipulated / contested facts and their proposed exhibits. The parties should bring copies of each of their proposed exhibits to the meet and confer session. In light of this clarification, if the parties require additional time to prepare for the meet and confer session, the Court will entertain reasonable requests for adjournment. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 3/29/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
311 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting a two week adjournment of the hrg. scheduled for 4/5/2016 (nr, ) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
312 TEXT ORDER: Per the request of plaintiff, the hearing/conference scheduled for 4/5/16 has been rescheduled to 4/20/16 at 11:00 a.m. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 4/4/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
313 TEXT ORDER - As discussed with the parties on the record on 4/20/16, Defendant Aiellos may file an appropriate discovery motion on or before 5/13/16. Plaintiff shall file any response thereto on or before 5/27/16 Defendant may file a reply submission on or before 6/10/16.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 4/20/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Status Conference held on 4/20/2016. (CD #ECR.) (nm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
314 Letter from Reid H. Eder. (EDER, REID) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
315 Letter from Reid H. Eder, Esq.. (EDER, REID) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
316 TEXT ORDER - The Court has reviewed counsel's request for a two-day adjournment of Defendant's deadline (set pursuant to this Court's Order dated 4/20/16) to file an appropriate discovery motion. (ECF No. 314). Counsel's request is GRANTED. The deadlines set forth in this Court's 4/20/16 Order are revised as follows: Defendant Aiellos may file an appropriate discovery motion on or before 5/18/16. Plaintiff shall file any response thereto on or before June 1, 2016. Defendant may file a reply submission on or before 6/15/16. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 5/17/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
317 First MOTION for Discovery to be reopened by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of exhibits, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Brief, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(EDER, REID) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 317 First MOTION for Discovery to be reopened. Motion set for 6/20/2016 before Judge Jose L. Linares. Unless

05/19/2016
05/27/2016 06/02/2016 06/06/2016 06/07/2016 06/15/2016 06/17/2016 07/14/2016 09/01/2016

otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
318 Transcript of Proceedings of Status Conference held on April 20, 2016, before Judge JOSEPH A. DICKSON. Court Reporter/Transcriber KLJ TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE/Sandra Carbonaro (201-7031670). NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 6/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2016. (ek) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
319 Letter from Donell L. Prince requesting an extension of time to file his response /opposition to deft's motion to reopen discovery, etc. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
320 Certification in opposition to deft's motion to re-open discovery on behalf of DONELL L. PRINCE. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
321 ORDER granting pltf's request to extend time to file his response/opposition to deft's motion to reopen discovery, etc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 6/6/2016. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
322 Amended Certification in opposition to deft's motion by Donell Prince on behalf of DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(nr, ) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
323 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 317 First MOTION for Discovery to be reopened (EDER, REID) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
324 CERTIFICATION in Opposition filed by DONELL L. PRINCE re 317 First MOTION for Discovery to be reopened (nr, ) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
325 Letter from Donell L. Prince inquiring as to the status of pending motions to reopen and discovery (nr, ) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
326 LETTER ORDER denying 317 First MOTION for Discovery to be reopened by THOMAS AIELLOS, in its entirety. In the interest of justice, however, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 1, and to facilitate the finalization of the parties' proposal final pretrial order, the Court will require Plaintiff to make the additional Documents, and any other documents he intents to list in the final pretrial order, available for inspection and copying. Given Plaintiff's location in Hackensack, New Jersey, that inspection and copying shall take place beginning at 10:00 am

09/08/2016 09/23/2016 09/26/2016
09/26/2016 09/26/2016 09/27/2016
10/11/2016

on 9/27/2016 at the office of Cole Shotz P.C., etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 9/1/2016. (JB, ) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
327 TEXT ORDER - The Court clarifies that Defendant shall reimburse Cole Schotz, P.C. for the reasonable costs of copying Plaintiff's documents as described in the Court's Order dated 9/1/16. (ECF No. 326). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 9/8/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
328 APPLICATION/PETITION for extension of time to comply with Courts Order request of 9/1/2016 by DONELL L. PRINCE. (JB, ) ( (Entered: 09/23/2016)
329 TEXT ORDER - Given Plaintiff's representation that, despite his best efforts, he was unable to assemble all of the documents that he is required to make available for inspection and copying pursuant to this Court's 9/1/16 Order, (ECF No. 326), the session scheduled for 9/27/16 at Cole Schotz, P.C. is adjourned without date. The Court will enter a subsequent order setting a new date for that session, as well as a new deadline for the parties to submit their proposed final pretrial order. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 9/26/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
330 NOTICE of Appearance by XAVIER A. NUNEZ on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS(badge #221, individually and as police officer in Police Department, City of Hackensack) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(NUNEZ, XAVIER) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
331 Letter from Xavier A. Nunez, Esq.. (NUNEZ, XAVIER) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - Xavier A. Nunez, attorney for Defendant Sgt. Thomas Aiellos has restricted access to the Notice of appearance filed on 9/26/2016 without an order or clarification as to why access was restricted. Please submit a certification stating that this document is to be marked Confidential Material or that this document's access was restricted in error. Please be advised, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3, you must file a motion for leave to have a document sealed. (JB, ) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - CHAD LEE KLASNA, does not have a correct e-mail address listed with the court and is not receiving his/her notices of electronic filing in this case. Pursuant to local rule 10.1 and court procedures, counsel and unrepresented parties are required to notify the court of any mailing or e-mail address changes. The court has deleted the invalid e-mail address. Attorneys should review the ECF link on our web site for information on maintaining your account and unrepresented parties, or those attorneys without access to maintaining their account, should notice the Clerk. (th, ) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/11/2016 10/11/2016 10/11/2016 10/12/2016

332 TEXT ORDER By Order dated 9/1/16, (ECF No. 326), this Court required Plaintiff to make the Additional Documents, and any other documents he intends to list in the final pretrial order, available for inspection and copying at the offices of Cole Schotz P.C. (25 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601) on 9/27/16. The Court adjourned that session by Order dated 9/26/16 in light of Plaintiffs representation that he was unable to timely assemble all of the necessary documents. (ECF No. 329). The inspection and copying session shall now take place at the offices of Cole Schotz P.C. on 11/1/16 at 10:00 a.m. Defendant shall reimburse Cole Schotz P.C. for the reasonable costs of copying Plaintiffs documents. The parties shall submit a final version of their proposed final pretrial order on or before 12/2/16. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 10/11/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - JESSE D. LUBIN, does not have a correct e-mail address listed with the court and is not receiving his/her notices of electronic filing in this case. Pursuant to local rule 10.1 and court procedures, counsel and unrepresented parties are required to notify the court of any mailing or e-mail address changes. The court has deleted the invalid e-mail address. Attorneys should review the ECF link on our web site for information on maintaining your account and unrepresented parties, or those attorneys without access to maintaining their account, should notice the Clerk. (th, ) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - WILLIAM AUGUST ANTHONY SICHERI, does not have a correct e-mail address listed with the court and is not receiving his/her notices of electronic filing in this case. Pursuant to local rule 10.1 and court procedures, counsel and unrepresented parties are required to notify the court of any mailing or email address changes. The court has deleted the invalid e-mail address. Attorneys should review the ECF link on our web site for information on maintaining your account and unrepresented parties, or those attorneys without access to maintaining their account, should notice the Clerk. (th, ) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - V. NICOLE LANGFITT, does not have a correct e-mail address listed with the court and is not receiving his/her notices of electronic filing in this case. Pursuant to local rule 10.1 and court procedures, counsel and unrepresented parties are required to notify the court of any mailing or e-mail address changes. The court has deleted the invalid e-mail address. Attorneys should review the ECF link on our web site for information on maintaining your account and unrepresented parties, or those attorneys without access to maintaining their account, should notice the Clerk. (th, ) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 11/09/2016 11/10/2016 11/21/2016
12/01/2016 12/02/2016

333 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to CHAD LEE KLASNA at 72-eagle Rock Avenue East Hanover, NJ 07936 (JB, ) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
334 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to WILLLAIM ANTHONY SICHERI (JB, ) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
335 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to JESSE D. LUBIN (JB, ) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
336 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to V. NICOLE LANGFITT (JB, ) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
338 Letter from DONELL L. PRINCE. (JB, ) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
337 Certification on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS Re 330 Notice of Appearance. (NUNEZ, XAVIER) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
339 TEXT ORDER - By Order dated October 11, 2016, this Court required Plaintiff to make certain documents available for inspection and copying at the offices of Cole Schotz P.C. on 11/1/16. (ECF No. 332). The Court further Ordered that Defendant would bear the cost of copying those documents. On 11/1/16, the Court conducted a telephone conference with the parties. During that conference, Defendant represented that Plaintiff had produced several thousand pages of documents for inspection and copying, and that copying those documents by hand at the offices of Cole Schotz P.C would be both unduly time consuming and cost-prohibitive. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding delivering those documents to a vendor for copying. By letter dated November 13, 2016 (filed November 16, 2016), Plaintiff advised the Court that defense counsel had not returned his calls on the issue, and that counsel had not otherwise taken any steps to arrange for making copies of the documents. Plaintiff also, without explanation, delivered what appear to be several thousands of pages of original documents to the Court. Plaintiff also indicated that there would be more documents to come. It is unclear why Plaintiff delivered his documents to the Court (i.e., does Plaintiff intend for Defendant to pick them up for copying?). It is similarly unclear why Defendant has apparently not taken any steps to have Plaintiffs documents copied since the parties 11/1/16 conference call with the Court. The parties shall both submit explanatory letters to the Court on or before 11/30/16. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/21/16. (nm, ) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
340 Letter from Xavier Nunez, Esq.. (NUNEZ, XAVIER) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
341 Second MOTION for Discovery to be reopened by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Exhibits, # 2 Certification of Service, # 3 Brief, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B,

12/02/2016 12/05/2016
12/05/2016
12/08/2016 12/16/2016 12/28/2016 02/01/2017 02/01/2017 03/22/2017 03/30/2017 04/07/2017

# 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G, # 12 Exhibit H)(NUNEZ, XAVIER) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
342 Proposed Pretrial Order by DONELL L. PRINCE. (JB, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 341 Second MOTION for Discovery to be reopened. Motion set for 1/3/2017 before Judge Jose L. Linares. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (JB, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
343 LETTER ORDER Denying 341 Second MOTION for Discovery to be reopened by THOMAS AIELLOS. That the parties deadline for submitting a joint proposed final pretrial order is extended through and including 2/1/2017, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 12/6/2016. (JB, ) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
344 Letter from DONNELL L. PRINCE to Judge Dickson. (JB, ) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
345 Letter from Donnell L. Prince to Judge Dickson. (JB, ) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
346 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to WILLIAM AUGUST MAIL TO 72 Eagle Rock Avenue, East Hanover, NJ (JB, ) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
347 Proposed Pretrial Order by THOMAS AIELLOS. (NUNEZ, XAVIER) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
348 Proposed Pretrial Order by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(JB, ) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
349 NOTICE of Appearance by MITCHELL RYAN AYES on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
350 Letter to Hon. Joseph A. Dickson from DONNELL L. PRINCE, requesting status of case, etc (JB, ) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
351 TEXT ORDER The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs letter dated March 28, 2017. (ECF 350). Plaintiff contends that, despite this Courts December 5, 2016 Order requiring the parties to submit a JOINT final pretrial order by February 1, 2017, Defendant filed a proposed order that contained errors and/or omissions with regard to Plaintiffs positions. Plaintiff did not identify any specific errors or omissions in his letter. On or before April 28, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a submission that identifies any such errors or omissions contained in the proposed final pretrial order that Defendant filed on February 1, 2017. (ECF No. 347). The Court will then incorporate Plaintiffs changes into the final pretrial order. The Court stresses that Plaintiff is NOT to file an entirely new proposed final

04/27/2017 05/16/2017
05/18/2017 05/18/2017 05/18/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/13/2017
06/22/2017 06/29/2017

pretrial order. He is, instead, required to go through Defendants proposed form of order and identify, section by section, his proposed changes and/or additions.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 4/7/17. (nm, ) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
352 Letter identifying section by section, as per Order dated 4/7/2017 re 351 Order, (JB, ) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
353 LETTER ORDER, counsel for Defendant Aiellos shall, on or before 6/2/2017 file a form of proposed final pretrial order that incorporates each of the revisions set forth in Plaintiff's April 27, 2017 submissions, (ECF No. 352), including those described herein and also includes any responses to Plaintiff's objections to Defendant's witness, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 5/16/2017. (JB, ) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
354 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Jesse D. Lubin, send to Callahan & Fusco at 72 Eagle Rock Avenue suite 320 Eash Hanover, NJ 07936 (JB, ) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
355 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to CHAD LEE KLASNA send to Callahan & Fusco LLC 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Suite 320 East Hanover, NJ 07936 (JB, ) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
356 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to RED HARLAN EDER send to Callahan & Fusco at 103 Eisehover Parkway Roseland NJ 07068 (JB, ) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
357 Proposed Pretrial Order Amended Final by THOMAS AIELLOS. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
358 Exhibit to 357 Proposed Pretrial Order by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Exhibit List)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
359 TEXT ORDER - Plaintiff shall review the revised, proposed form of final pretrial order that counsel for Defendant Aiellos submitted on 6/2/17. (ECF Nos. 357-58). On or before 6/23/17, Plaintiff shall file either (1) a copy of the proposed order's signature page bearing his signature (thereby indicating his approval of the proposed order's contents); or (2) a letter setting forth any remaining objections to the proposed form of order.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 6/13/17. (nm, ) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
360 Letter from DONELL L. PRINCE requesting that the Court schedule a conference so the parties can go over some issues in the proposed pretrial orders, etc (JB, ) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
361 TEXT ORDER - The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's letter dated 6/20/17. (ECF No. 360). An in-person conference is scheduled before Judge Dickson on 7/18/17 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2D of the MLK Building

07/18/2017 07/19/2017 11/14/2017 03/19/2018
04/04/2018 04/06/2018
04/06/2018 04/18/2018 05/04/2018 05/04/2018
05/04/2018

and U.S. Courthouse. At that time, the parties shall be prepared to address any remaining issues regarding their proposed final pretrial order in this matter.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 6/29/17. (nm, ) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Status Conference held on 7/18/2017. (CD #ECR.) (nm, ) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
362 AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 7/19/2017. (JB, ) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
363 Letter from DONELL L. PRINCE, requesting status. (JB, ) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
364 ORDER: This matter has been set for a firm trial date of 6/4/2018 09:30 AM before before Chief Judge Jose L. Linares in Courtroom 5D, 5th Floor of the MLK Building. etc. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 3/19/2018. (JB, ) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
365 Letter from Mitchell Ayes, Esq.. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
366 TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendant's counsel's request for a brief adjournment of the trial date in this matter currently scheduled for June 4, 2018. Plaintiff has not objected to this request. The Court thus adjourns the trial date in this matter to June 13, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 04/06/2018. (lr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 6/13/2018 09:30 AM in Newark Courtroom 5D before Chief Judge Jose L. Linares. (lr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
367 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to WILLIAM AUGUST ANTHONY SICHERI (JB, ) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
368 NOTICE of Appearance by CHRISTOPHER SMITH DEL BOVE on behalf of THOMAS AIELLOS (DEL BOVE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
369 MOTION in Limine to Bar Plaintiff's Testimony and Evidence as to Damages by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
370 MOTION in Limine to Bar Past Conduct by Hackensack Police Department by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 05/04/2018 05/04/2018 05/04/2018
05/07/2018
05/09/2018 05/14/2018 05/14/2018 05/15/2018

371 MOTION in Limine to Bar Margo Prince and Tonzel Prince by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Motion appears to be duplicate.) Modified on 5/22/2018 (ek). (Entered: 05/04/2018)
372 MOTION in Limine to Bar Dr. Cheng records and any other medical provider by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Text of Proposed Order, # 6 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
373 MOTION in Limine to Bar M. Prince and T. Prince by THOMAS AIELLOS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
374 PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, BY DIRECTED VERDICT, IN THIS MATTER AS TO LIABILITY PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983, GIVEN A PRIORI CONSTITUTION VIOLATION AND BY DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE ELEMENTS FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBITS)(ld, ) Modified on 11/6/2019 (ro). (Entered: 05/09/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 371 MOTION in Limine to Bar Margo Prince and Tonzel Prince, 369 MOTION in Limine to Bar Plaintiff's Testimony and Evidence as to Damages, 370 MOTION in Limine to Bar Past Conduct by Hackensack Police Department, 373 MOTION in Limine to Bar M. Prince and T. Prince, 372 MOTION in Limine to Bar Dr. Cheng records and any other medical provider. Motion set for 6/4/2018 before Chief Judge Jose L. Linares. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (ld, ) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
375 Letter from DONELL L. PRINCE. (ld, ) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
376 RESPONSE re 374 Brief,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mitchell Ayes, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
379 Certification in opposition to Defendant's 373 Motion in Limine by DONELL L. PRINCE. (ek) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
377 ORDER that the parties now have until June 4, 2018 to submit to the Court a single numbered list of all exhibits, as well as agreed upon voir dire questions, a neutral statement of the case, and agreed upon jury instructions in accordance with its prior order; Defendant shall send Plaintiff copies of his motion papers by regular mail and by e-mail by

05/15/2018 05/15/2018 05/18/2018 05/21/2018
05/21/2018 05/23/2018 05/23/2018
10/18/2018
11/05/2018 11/06/2018
11/07/2018 11/07/2018 11/08/2018

4:00 pm on May 15, 2018; etc. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 05/14/2018. (ek) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
Order sent to Plaintiff by regular mail. (ek) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
378 AFFIDAVIT of Mitchell Ayes, Esq. by THOMAS AIELLOS. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
380 RESPONSE re 379 Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
381 TEXT ORDER: TIME CHANGE ONLY!!! Oral argument on all motions in limine is now set for May 23, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5D. So Ordered by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 05/21/2018. (lr, ) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
382 NOTICE by DONELL L. PRINCE (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit)(ek) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
383 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jose L. Linares: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 5/23/2018. (Court Reporter/Recorder PHYLLIS T. LEWIS.) (lr, ) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
384 TEXT ORDER: Pursuant to the agreement between both parties on the record before the Court at the hearing held on May 23, 2018, the Court will administratively terminate all pending motions in limine, (ECF Nos. 369, 370, 372, and 373), without prejudice until such time as an attorney for Plaintiff enters an appearance. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 05/23/2018. (lr, ) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
385 LETTER ORDER: In-Person Settlement Conference set for 11/20/2018 02:00 PM in Newark - Courtroom 2D before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. The parties shall submit confidential settlement position statements by 11/15/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 10/18/2018. (dam, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
386 Letter from Mitchell Ayes, Esq.. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
387 LETTER ORDER ADJOURNING IN-PERSON settlement conference previously scheduled for 11/20/2018 to 12/18/2018 at 10:30 AM in Newark - Courtroom 2D before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/6/2018. (dam, ) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
388 Letter from Frederick D Miceli. (MICELI, FREDERICK) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
389 Letter from Frederick D Miceli. (MICELI, FREDERICK) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The 388 LETTER and 389 LETTER submitted by FREDERICK MICELI on 11/7/2018

11/13/2018 11/28/2018 11/28/2018
11/29/2018
12/06/2018 12/12/2018 12/18/2018 12/18/2018 12/20/2018

appear to be duplicates. These submissions will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (dam, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)
390 TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of counsel's letter dated 11/7/18. (ECF No. 389). Defense counsel shall file a response on or before 11/27/18.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/13/18. (nm, ) (Entered: 11/14/2018)
391 Letter from Mitchell Ayes, Esq.. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
392 TEXT ORDER - By letter dated 11/7/18, Plaintiff's counsel requested that the Court require that "a representative of the defendant's insurance carrier or other such authorized representative be present in person" for the settlement conference scheduled for 12/18/18. Defendant has not responded to that request, despite this Court's 11/13/18 Order requiring him to do so. Plaintiff's request is GRANTED. Defendant shall ensure that a suitable representative attend the 12/18/18 settlement conference in person.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/28/18. (nm, ) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
393 TEXT ORDER - The Court clarifies its previous Text order (ECF No. 392) to reflect that defense counsel HAS responded to Plaintiff's counsel's 11/7/18 letter, and has advised that a representative from Defendant's insurance carrier will be present at the 12/18/18 conference. (ECF No. 391).. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 11/29/18. (nm, ) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
394 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to CHAD LEE KLASNA (JB, ) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
395 TEXT ORDER: Per counsel's request, and with consent, the settlement conference scheduled for 12/18/18 will begin at 9:30 a.m. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 12/12/18. (nm, ) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Settlement Conference held on 12/18/2018. (jbb) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
396 TEXT ORDER: Defendant to report back on status of settlement on or before 1/16/19. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 12/18/18. (jbb) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
397 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to CHAD LEE KLASNA send to Callahan & Fusco LLC 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Suite 320 East Hanover, NJ 07936 (No other address in file to be found) (JB, ) (Entered: 12/22/2018)

01/11/2019
01/15/2019 01/16/2019
01/31/2019 02/01/2019 02/28/2019 05/10/2019 05/20/2019
07/26/2019 09/17/2019 11/05/2019
11/06/2019

398 LETTER ORDER, the undersigned will conduct an in-person Settlement Conference on 1/23/2019 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 1/11/2019. (JB, ) (Entered: 01/13/2019)
399 Letter from Mitchell Ayes, Esq.. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
400 TEXT ORDER: Per counsel's request, and with consent, (ECF No. 399), the in-person settlement conference scheduled for 1/23/19 is adjourned to 2/28/19 at 10:00 a.m. Defense counsel shall kindly advise Mr. Miceli of the adjournment. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 1/16/19. (jbb) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
401 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to William August Anthony Sicheri (JB, ) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
402 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to William August Anthony Sicheri (No other forwarding address to update) (JB, ) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson: Settlement Conference held on 2/28/2019. (jbb) (Entered: 02/28/2019)
403 Letter from DONELL L. PRINCE, (JB, ) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
404 TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez for all further proceedings. Judge Jose L. Linares no longer assigned to case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 5/20/19. (ak, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
405 Letter from DONELL L. PRINCE, requesting Status of case. (JB, ) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
406 Letter from Donell L. Prince,. (JB, ) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
407 ORDER LIFTING STAY and reinstating in limine motions. Oral argument on the pending motions is scheduled for December 13, 2019 commencing at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/5/19. (certified mail RR#7019 0700 0001 0406 3024)(ro, ) (ro). (ro). (Entered: 11/06/2019)
Reset Deadlines as to 371 MOTION in Limine to Bar Margo Prince and Tonzel Prince, 369 MOTION in Limine to Bar Plaintiff's Testimony and Evidence as to Damages, 370 MOTION in Limine to Bar Past Conduct by Hackensack Police Department, 373 MOTION in Limine to Bar M. Prince and T. Prince, 372 MOTION in Limine to Bar Dr. Cheng records and any other medical provider. Oral argument on the motions is scheduled for 12/13/2019 at 10:30 AM before Judge John Michael Vazquez. (ro, ) (Entered: 11/06/2019)

11/06/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019
11/15/2019 11/19/2019
11/22/2019 12/02/2019 12/18/2019 12/19/2019

Reset Deadlines as to 374 MOTION in Limine. Motion with oral argument is scheduled for 12/13/2019 at 10:30 AM before Judge John Michael Vazquez. (ro, ) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
408 NOTICE MOTION for Recusal by DONELL L. PRINCE. (JB, ) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 408 MOTION for Recusal. Motion set for 12/16/2019 before Judge John Michael Vazquez. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (JB, ) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
409 Letter. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
410 TEXT ORDER: Rescheduling oral argument on the pending 371 MOTION in Limine to Bar Margo Prince and Tonzel Prince, 369 MOTION in Limine to Bar Plaintiff's Testimony and Evidence as to Damages, 370 MOTION in Limine to Bar Past Conduct by Hackensack Police Department, 373 MOTION in Limine to Bar M. Prince and T. Prince, 374 MOTION in Limine, 408 MOTION for Recusal, [and 372] MOTION in Limine to Bar Dr. Cheng records and any other medical provider for for 12/19/2019 at 2:00 PM.. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/19/19. (ro, ) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
411 Certified Mail Receipt Returned sent to DONELL L. PRINCE. Delivered 11/15/19. (jc, ) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
412 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 408 MOTION for Recusal (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DEL BOVE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
413 Certified Mail Receipt Returned sent to DONELL L. PRINCE. Delivered on 11/29/19. (jc, ) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
414 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John Michael Vazquez: Motion Hearing held on 12/19/2019 re 372 MOTION in Limine to Bar Dr. Cheng records and any other medical provider filed by THOMAS AIELLOS, 371 MOTION in Limine to Bar Margo Prince and Tonzel Prince filed by THOMAS AIELLOS, 374 MOTION in Limine filed by DONELL L. PRINCE, 370 MOTION in Limine to Bar Past Conduct by Hackensack Police Department filed by THOMAS AIELLOS, 373 MOTION in Limine to Bar M. Prince and T. Prince filed by THOMAS AIELLOS, 408 MOTION for Recusal filed by DONELL L. PRINCE, 369 MOTION in Limine to Bar Plaintiff's Testimony and Evidence as to Damages filed by THOMAS AIELLOS. Decision reserved. (Court Reporter/Recorder Lisa A. Larsen.) (ro, ) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/23/2019
01/21/2020 02/05/2020 02/07/2020 02/07/2020
02/18/2020 03/11/2020 03/24/2020 04/24/2020
04/30/2020

415 ORDER denying 369 Motion in Limine; denying 370 Motion in Limine; denying 371 Motion in Limine; denying 372 Motion in Limine; denying 373 Motion in Limine; denying 374 Motion in Limine; denying 408 Motion for Recusal. (Cert.RR# 7019 0700 0001 0406 3055). Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 12/23/19. (Attachments: # 1 trial document) (ro, ) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
416 Certified Mail Returned Undelivered. Mail sent to Donell Prince. (jc, ) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
Remark: Returned mailing of D.E.415 addressed to Plaintiff Donell Prince re-mailed via regular mail by Chambers. (ro, ) (Entered: 02/05/2020)
417 MOTION for a Stay in Case While Petition for Writ of Mandamus is Decided by Third Circuit Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1651 & Rule 21(a) by DONELL L. PRINCE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Third Circuit Filings) (jc, ) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 417 MOTION for a Stay in Case. Motion set for 3/2/2020 before Judge John Michael Vazquez. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (jc, ) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
418 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by THOMAS AIELLOS re 417 MOTION to Stay (DEL BOVE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
419 ORDER denying 417 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings. (Copy of Order sent to Plaintiff by certified and regular mail, #7018 1830 0000 9606 0634). Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/11/20. (jc, ) (Entered: 03/11/2020)
420 Certified Mail Receipt Returned sent to DONELL L. PRINCE re 419 Order on Motion to Stay (jc, ) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
421 TEXT ORDER: Due to COVID-19 the Pretrial conference scheduled for May 19, 2020 and Trial scheduled to commence on June 1, 2020 are adjourned. A status conference is scheduled for July 15, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. Parties are to adhere to the deadlines for trial submissions outlined in this Court's order filed at D.E.415. Counsel for the Defendants' are to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Court. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 4/24/2020. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
422 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by THOMAS AIELLOS re 421 Order,, (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

04/30/2020 04/30/2020 04/30/2020 07/13/2020
07/15/2020 02/19/2021

423 Proposed Jury Instructions by THOMAS AIELLOS. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
424 Proposed Voir Dire by THOMAS AIELLOS. (AYES, MITCHELL) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
425 Proposed Jury Instructions and Voir Requests/Questions by DONELL L. PRINCE. (jc, ) Modified on 5/21/2020 (jc, ). (Entered: 05/21/2020)
426 TEXT ORDER: The status conference scheduled for July 15, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. will be held by telephone conferencing. The dial-in information for this call is as follows: 1-888-684-8852, access code: 31266124#. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 7/13/2020. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
427 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John Michael Vazquez: Status Conference held by telephone conference on 7/15/2020. (Court Reporter/Recorder Lisa A. Larsen.) (ro, ) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson no longer assigned to the case. (wh) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

04/15/2021 20:02:02

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Hill

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:09-cv-05429-JMV-JSA Start date: 1/1/1980 End date: 4/15/2021

Billable Pages:

30

Cost:

3.00