[brief] Plaintiff’s cause of action for the “State Conspiracy” claim…accrued upon the state trial court’s alleged failure to correctly amend Plaintiff’s Judgment of Conviction; as such, they accrued on October 17, 2018 and thus were timely by the date of filing the complaint, October 13, 2020.  At this point, however, the allegedly incorrect Judgment of Conviction has not yet been declared invalid by a state tribunal, implicating Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)…  Aa55-56; [...] op. at p. 9-10.  The federal court then dismissed the applicable federal claims without prejudice pending the invalidation of the JOC by a “state tribunal” (Counts XIII, XIV and XV).  *Id.*  Since the federal court did not retain jurisdiction of the State Claims, it did not dismiss those claims but remanded the matter to this Court for resolution.  *Aa*57,62; *id.* at p. 11,16.  In accordance with the federal Court’s findings, as to the “[‘]State Conspiracy[’] claim” against the State Defendants in their “official capacity,” those claims have not yet accrued.  *Aa*55-56; *id* at p. 9-10.⁷  Nevertheless, citing *Gazzillo v. Grieb*, 398 N.J. Super. 259, 264 (App. Div. 2008), Appellant espoused that a notice of claim is not required for those claims that are alleged against a Defendant in his or her “individual capacity” because the claim does not seek redress against the Defendant as an employee nor against the Defendant’s employer.  In 1994, the TCA was amended to target individuals being sued in their “official capacities” as public employees.  *Velez v. City of Jersey City*, 180 N.J. 284 (2004).  In that amendment, the statute, for the first time, included suits against individuals as public employees in its notice of claims provision.  *Id.* at 291.  Said another way, a suit against a person that must be subject to the TCA is one that is against a person who is being sued as a public employee.  Therefore, requiring a --- ⁷  It is imperative that in addressing the TCA, the Court’s analysis of Appellant’s claims are properly analyzed under the distinct legal theories—both under the TCA and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).  While Appellant’s State claims may be subject to the TCA individually and as torts underlying Appellant’s “State Conspiracy” claim (Count 6), none of the individual torts, including the “State Conspiracy” claim (Count 6) are subject to the TCA as torts underlying Appellant’s New Jersey Civil Rights Conspiracy Claim (Count X).  *Owens v. Feigin*, 194 N.J. 607, 613-14 (2008)(holding the notice requirements of the TCA do not apply to claims brought under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act); *Fuchilla v. Lavman*, 109 N.J. 319, 337-38 (1988).  TCA notice of claim in order to file suit against a public employee who is being sued personally or in his or her individual capacity, automatically converts an “individual capacity” suit into a “official capacity” suit—successfully voiding “individual capacity” claims.  Accordingly, Appellant’s claims against the public employee  Defendants in their individual or personal capacity are not subject to the TCA and that, contrary to the trial court’s position, those “official capacity” claims that are subject to the TCA have not yet accrued.  As a result, the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s defamation claims and denial of Appellant’s request for reconsideration was in error.  For the above reasons, Appellant’s defamation claims should not have been dismissed, requiring reversal.