On October 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Hackensack Police Department, Hackensack Municipal Court, Bergen County Jail in the City of Hackensack, Bergen County Municipal Court, and Bergen County Prosecutor. The plaintiff, filing pro se, asked the court for damages and costs. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by attempting to break and entered his home, threatening to imprison him, fabricating stories to have him incarcerated, and asserting false criminal charges, which led to plaintiff spending three months and five days in county jail.

Prior to these events, plaintiffs and officers had a prior relationship that arose out of an automobile accident. At the time of the incident, plaintiff was working on an appeal for the automobile accident case, in which he claimed that officers saw that he was black and as a result claimed that he was faking injuries.

On October 12, 2010, the U.S. District Court (Judge Jose L. Linares) issued an order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. The court granted leave to the plaintiff to allow him to amend his conspiracy to maliciously prosecute and equal protection claims. The court noted that if plaintiff failed to do so, his Second Amended Complaint would remain the operative complaint in this matter and the case would proceed solely as to Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim as against defendant Sgt. Aiellos. 2010 WL 4025846 On October 27, 2010, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint. The District Court issued an opinion dismissing the amended complaint as to all defendants except Janice Behnke and Sgt. Aiellos on December 22, 2010. 2010 WL 5392724. Janice Behnke's subsequent motion to dismiss was granted on February 26, 2011.

Then on May 22, 2012 the court issued an opinion denying the plaintiff’s motions for leave to submit another amended complaint and for a stay in discovery. 2012 WL 1883812

On December 20, 2013, the U.S. District Court (Judge Jose L. Linares) issued an order denying the defendant and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. 2013 WL 6865619. On January 16, 2014, the defendants appealed to the Third Circuit from the denial of their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. On May 7, 2014, the Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to stay the case pending interlocutory appeal. Then on December 2, 2014 the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Third Circuit’s decision hinged on two elements including whether the defendant’s criminal complaint was brought without probable cause and whether the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff. The court agreed with the district court that both issues were matters of disputed fact for a jury to decide and therefore rejected the motion for summary judgment. 594 Fed.Appx. 742

Following the Third Circuit’s decision the parties began to enter into settlement negotiations. As of March 2018, the parties have been engaging in discovery and pretrial motions, and the matter is awaiting trial.

Julie Singer - 11/13/2014
Will McCartney - 03/10/2018


compress summary