NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

SUZANNE VENEZIA, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-6692 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S :

OFFICE, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, brings this action containing

apparent claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and

personal injury in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”)

and state law. (Dkt. entry no. 4, Am. Compl.) As far as this

Court can discern, (1) the plaintiff was arrested by police

officers for the Borough of Brielle after a family dispute, and

charged with assault and trespass, (2) a temporary restraining

order (“Restraining Order”) was issued directing the plaintiff to

not contact the family members with whom she had the dispute, (3)

the plaintiff was briefly held at the Monmouth County Correctional

Institution, and (4) the charges and the Restraining Order were

dismissed. Also as far as this Court can discern, (1) a warrant

was issued for the plaintiff’s arrest in Union County for a

violation of the Restraining Order, (2) the plaintiff was arrested

by police officers for the Township of Cranford, and (3) the

charge related to the Restraining Order violation was dismissed.

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1042
THE DEFENDANTS now separately move to dismiss the Amended

Complaint. (Dkt. entry nos. 11, 22, 52.) This Court will grant

the separate motions and dismiss the Amended Complaint in its

entirety, as the Amended Complaint (1) is in violation of Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 8(a), 8(d), and 10(b), and (2)

contains certain allegations that are barred by the immunity

doctrine.

THE PLAINTIFF is no stranger to civil litigation, and has

been directed on at least one occasion elsewhere on the proper

way to draft a complaint. See Venezia v. Manasquan Police

Department, No. 10-4634. dkt. entry no. 16, 10-15-10 Order. The

Amended Complaint cites federal and state statutes, but is

deficient because the allegations are presented in ways that defy

any meaningful opportunity for the defendants to respond. The

Amended Complaint has forty footnotes; it should contain none.

THE FIRST TWELVE PAGES are dedicated to over-inclusive

details concerning the family dispute, including the alleged

opinions of the plaintiff’s family members on the plaintiff’s

termination of employment as a teacher and her divorce case. 

Scattered throughout the Amended Complaint are references to the

plaintiff’s efforts to obtain certain records, her psychiatric

status, other litigation that she instituted in Pennsylvania, and

the conduct of other parties not named in this action. Those 

2

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 1043
references appear to have no relevance to the claims against the

defendants listed in the Amended Complaint.

MOST of the paragraphs, which are numbered, improperly

contain multiple allegations. There are several instances in the

Amended Complaint where phrases are unnecessarily underlined or

italicized.

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT presents a dense thicket of rambling

statements over the course of fifty-five pages, as well as 200

pages of exhibits — many of those exhibits being the plaintiff’s

own correspondence — that are annexed to the original Complaint. 

It contains citations to case law and arguments that may be

appropriate for a brief, but that are inappropriate for

presentation in a complaint. The allegations are not short,

plain, concise, and direct. The Court will not require the

defendants to dissect these allegations in an effort to file

adequate answers.

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT also appears to challenge the conduct

and rulings by Brielle Municipal Court and New Jersey Superior

Court, Union County (“Local Court Claims”), even though those two

entities are not named as defendants. (See Am. Compl. at 30-31,

46-47.) The Local Court Claims are barred by the immunity

doctrine. Municipal courts and state courts, and the judiciary

thereof, cannot be held civilly liable for judicially-related

conduct, even when those acts are in excess of their jurisdiction

3

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 1044
and alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. See

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Figueroa v.

Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 437, 440 (3d Cir. 2000). Indeed,

municipal courts and state courts enjoy the same immunity from an

action brought under Section 1983 in federal court as do the

States themselves for Eleventh Amendment purposes. See Callahan

v. Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 670-74 (3d Cir. 2000).

THIS COURT will grant the separate motions and dismiss the

Amended Complaint. But the plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, will

be given one more opportunity to file a proper pleading. Thus,

the dismissal will be without prejudice to the plaintiff to move

to reopen the action and for leave to file a second amended

complaint curing the deficiencies detailed above. If the

plaintiff so moves, then a proposed second amended complaint must

be annexed as an exhibit for this Court to review.

THE PLAINTIFF, if moving to reopen, must address another

issue. It appears that the plaintiff has instituted parallel

proceedings in New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, and

New Jersey Superior Court, Union County (“State Proceedings”). 

See Venezia v. Borough of Brielle, No. 6388-10; Venezia v. Union

County Prosecutor’s Office, No. 5081-10. “There is nothing

necessarily inappropriate . . . about filing a protective action”. 

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 294

n.9 (2005) (citing with approval Gov’t of V.I. v. Neadle, 861

4

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 1045
F.Supp. 1054, 1055 (M.D. Fla. 1994), which stayed action brought

by plaintiffs “to protect themselves” if personal jurisdiction

over defendant failed in other court). But if there are parallel

State Proceedings, then this Court would be inclined to abstain

pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which

authorizes a stay where a duplicate or parallel state court action

is pending, in consideration of wise judicial administration, the

conservation of judicial resources, and the comprehensive

disposition of litigation. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist.

v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-19 (1976).

THE STATE PROCEEDINGS may “involve the same parties and

substantially identical claims, raising nearly identical

allegations and issues.” IFC Interconsult v. Safeguard Int’l

Partners, 438 F.3d 298, 306 (3d Cir. 2006); see Flint v. A.P.

DeSanno & Sons, 234 F.Supp.2d 506, 510-11 (E.D. Pa. 2002). This

Court would then consider: (1) the inconvenience of the federal

forum (“Convenience Factor”); (2) the desirability of avoiding

piecemeal litigation (“Piecemeal Factor”); (3) the order in which

jurisdiction has been obtained by the concurrent forums (“Forum

Factor”); (4) whether a federal question is presented (“Federal

Factor”); and (5) whether the State Proceedings would adequately

protect the plaintiff’s rights (“Rights Factor”). Colo. River,

424 U.S. at 818-19; see Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 23, 26 (1983).

5

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 1046
THE CONVENIENCE FACTOR would weigh in favor of abstention. 

Plaintiff, as a Pennsylvania citizen, would be equally

inconvenienced traveling to either the state courts in Monmouth

County and Union County or the federal court in Trenton. But

litigating in Monmouth County and Union County would be more

convenient for the respective defendants. See Chiampi v. Bally’s

Park Place, No. 05-3395, 2007 WL 465469, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 7,

2007) (abstaining in favor of Atlantic County Superior Court

proceeding, even though plaintiff lived closer to federal court

in Camden, as claim arose in and defendant and witness were in

Atlantic City); Albright v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 95-4240,

1995 WL 664742, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 1995) (abstaining in

favor of action in Berks County Court of Common Pleas, as

operator of mower in issue and witnesses were in Berks County,

and thus federal court in Philadelphia less convenient).

THE PIECEMEAL FACTOR, Federal Factor, and Rights Factor

would be affected by the same fact: the plaintiff seeks relief

under Section 1983. The Piecemeal Factor would favor abstention. 

There is a strong federal policy against piecemeal litigation

evinced here, as “[i]t is certainly true that state courts of

general jurisdiction can adjudicate cases invoking federal

statutes, such as § 1983”, Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 366

(2001), and thus litigating the same claim in the federal forum

and the state forums would be wasteful. See Klements v. Cecil

6

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 1047
Twp., No. 09-3213, 2010 WL 4850713, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2010)

(noting district court stayed Section 1983 claim due to parallel

state action).

THE FEDERAL FACTOR would weigh against abstention due to the

presence of the Section 1983 claim. But the Rights Factor would

favor abstention, as New Jersey state courts can adjudicate such

a claim. Indeed, that the plaintiff brought the State Proceedings

“belies any claim that the state court cannot adequately protect

[the plaintiff’s] interests”. BIL Mgmt. Corp. v. N.J. Econ. Dev.

Auth., 310 Fed.Appx. 490, 493 (3d Cir. 2008). The Forum Factor

would depend upon the progress, if any, of the State Proceedings. 

Id.

IF THIS COURT were to abstain, and if the plaintiff were to

elect to return to federal court upon the conclusion of the State

Proceedings, then the defendants would be protected from duplicate

litigation by the preclusion doctrines and the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. See D.C. Ct. of Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482

(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).

THE PARTIES will note that this Court’s assessment of the

Amended Complaint herein is similar to this Court’s assessment of

the Second Amended Complaint in Venezia v. Manasquan Police

Department, No. 10-4634, in the Opinion and the Order and

Judgment therein dated May 31, 2011. The Amended Complaint 

7

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 1048
herein and Second Amended Complaint in that action suffer from

similar deficiencies.

THE COURT will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: May 31, 2011

8

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC-TJB Document 63 Filed 05/31/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 1049