NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

RICHARD DIAMOND, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3703 (MLC)

:

Plaintiffs, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

BOROUGH OF PEAPACK GLADSTONE, :

et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE COURT is reviewing the Second Amended Complaint sua

sponte. (See dkt. entry no. 26, 2d Am. Compl.) The plaintiffs 1

allege that the defendants have (1) wrongfully complained about

the plaintiffs’ dogs (“Dogs”), (2) wrongfully caused the

plaintiffs to be issued summonses (“Summonses”) as a result of

the Dogs’ behavior, and (3) committed violations of a

constitutional dimension meriting recovery of damages under 42

U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1983 (“Federal Claims”). (See 2d Am. Compl.)

THE PLAINTIFFS make allegations concerning the defendants’

conduct in ongoing municipal court proceedings (“Municipal Court

Proceedings”) that were commenced as a result of the Summonses. 

(See id.; see also dkt. entry no. 28, Br. in Support of Cross

 The plaintiffs incorrectly refer to the Second Amended 1

Complaint as the First Amended Complaint. (See 2d Am. Compl. at

1; see also dkt. entry no. 3, Am. Compl.)

Case 3:11-cv-03703-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 730
Mot. to Dismiss at 4 n.5 (asserting “that one summons was

dropped, while the other summons is actively being prosecuted by

the municipal prosecutor in municipal court”).) The plaintiffs

appear to allege that (1) the prosecutor in the Municipal Court

Proceedings, who is named as a defendant herein, is engaging in

malicious prosecution and malicious abuse of process against

them, and (2) all of the defendants are conspiring against them

in the Municipal Court Proceedings. (See 2d Am. Compl. at 2, 16,

18, 26, 29.)

THE MUNICIPAL COURT PROCEEDINGS are related to the Federal

Claims and are ongoing. Pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994), (1) the Court must determine whether a Section 1983

claim, “if successful, would have the hypothetical effect of

rendering [a] criminal conviction or sentence invalid”, and (2)

if a judgment for the plaintiffs on such a claim would

necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, then the claim

is barred until the conviction is overturned. Gibson v.

Superint. of N.J. Dep’t of Law & Pub. Safety, 411 F.3d 427, 451-

52 (3d Cir. 2005) (citations and quotations omitted).

IF THE PLAINTIFFS were successful on the Federal Claims,

then an eventual underlying conviction in the Municipal Court

Proceedings could be rendered invalid. When a plaintiff brings a

Section 1983 claim

before [being] convicted (or files any other claim

related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending

2

Case 3:11-cv-03703-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 731
or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power

of the district court, and in accord with common

practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal

case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007).

THE COURT will stay and administratively terminate this

action pending the issuance of a final disposition in the

Municipal Court Proceedings, including any aspect of the

Municipal Court Proceedings that is or will be the subject of

either an appeal or a review by any municipal or state court at

any level. The Court advises the plaintiffs to refrain from

moving to reopen the action until the Municipal Court Proceedings

are fully resolved, and that they should submit the proper

documentation in support of that potential motion to reopen,

e.g., a final order disposing of the Municipal Court Proceedings.

THE COURT further advises the plaintiffs that an

administrative termination of this federal action is not the

equivalent of a dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint with

prejudice, and is issued pursuant to the Court’s inherent power

to control the docket and in the interests of judicial economy. 

See Delgrosso v. Spang & Co., 903 F.2d 234, 236 (3d Cir. 1990)

(stating administrative termination is not a final determination,

as it “permits reinstatement and contemplates the possibility of 

3

Case 3:11-cv-03703-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 732
future proceedings”, and “does not purport to end litigation on

the merits”). The Court will issue an appropriate order.2

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: November 9, 2011

 The Court is aware of the Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and 2

Order, wherein the Magistrate Judge declined to issue a stay in

this action. (See dkt. entry no. 24, Magistrate Judge Op. &

Order.) That Opinion and Order, however, predates the filing of

the Second Amended Complaint, upon which the Court relies here.

4

Case 3:11-cv-03703-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 733