On October 23, 2009, an individual plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for 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, sought compensatory and punitive damages plus special damages for future legal fees. The plaintiff specifically claimed that the defendants violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by attempting to break in and enter 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, the plaintiff and officers had a relationship that arose out of an automobile accident. The plaintiff stated that he collected social security checks because of lasting injuries from the accident. The officers, allegedly because the plaintiff is black, claimed that the plaintiff had faked these 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 the 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 the 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 the plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim as against defendant Sgt. Aiellos. 2010 WL 4025846.
The plaintiff submitted an amended complaint later that month on October 27, 2010. The District Court issued an opinion dismissing the amended complaint as to all defendants except Behnke and Sgt. Aiellos on December 22, 2010. 2010 WL 5392724. The court granted Behnke's subsequent motion to dismiss 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 proceedings. 2012 WL 1883812.
On December 20, 2013, the U.S. District Court (Judge Jose L. Linares) issued an order denying the defendant’s and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. 2013 WL 6865619. On January 16, 2014, the defendant appealed to the Third Circuit on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court issued an order on May 7, 2014 granting the defendant’s motion to stay the case pending interlocutory appeal.
Months later, on December 2, 2014, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny summary judgment. The Third Circuit’s decision hinged on two elements, including whether the plaintiff’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. App'x 742.
Following the Third Circuit’s decision, litigation continued in the district court. The parties litigated discovery and pretrial orders vigorously. Trial was initially set for June 2018, but later postponed because in May 2018, the docket indicates that plaintiff sought to retain counsel (which terminated all pending pretrial motions). That fall and into early 2019, the parties continued settlement negotiations without success. Judge John Michael Vazquez now presides over the case, which is ongoing as of December 2019.
Julie Singer - 11/13/2014
Will McCartney - 03/10/2018
Richa Bijlani - 12/01/2019
compress summary
