LEE v. GALLINA-MECCA
2:23-cv-06495
| D.N.J. | Jun 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Patricia Lee and Bandy Lee, proceeding pro se, sued several defendants, including Michael Piacenza, principal of their children’s school, over custody issues and their subsequent arrests on school grounds.
- State Family Court Judge Gallina-Mecca previously awarded custody to the children's father, Alan Chan, and allegedly restricted Patricia Lee’s access to her children and information about the court proceedings.
- Plaintiffs allege that Piacenza, in coordination with other defendants, caused their arrests on school grounds in June and September 2022 to intimidate and prevent them from intervening in the custody dispute or testifying.
- Plaintiffs also claim the defendants acted with discriminatory animus, retaliated for reporting misconduct, violated their free speech rights, and maliciously prosecuted them.
- Piacenza moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Court had previously dismissed similar claims against the other defendants with prejudice; Piacenza’s motion was decided here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Due Process (§1983) | Piacenza colluded in deprivation of due process via arrests and restricted access | No protected interest implicated; not involved in procedure | Dismissed: no plausible due process claim stated |
| Civil Rights Conspiracy (§1983) | Defendants conspired to violate civil rights | No facts suggesting agreement or conspiracy | Dismissed: conclusory allegations insufficient |
| Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (§1985(2)) | Acts were motivated by discriminatory animus and obstructed state litigation | No specific allegations of discriminatory animus or conspiracy | Dismissed: no facts to support discrimination/conspiracy |
| Free Speech/Press (First Amendment) | Piacenza punished criticism and restricted speech | No allegations Piacenza limited speech | Dismissed: no claim alleged against Piacenza |
| Malicious Prosecution (NJ State Law) | Piacenza instigated baseless criminal action by arranging for arrests | Insufficient notice (NJCTA); Piacenza did not institute action | Dismissed: procedurally barred, inadequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (sets pleading standard for plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (expands Twombly’s plausibility pleading standard)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (explains inference standard on 12(b)(6) motions)
- Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) (court need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2018) (elements of conspiracy under §1983)
- Thomas v. Indep. Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (procedural due process elements)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1992) (defines substantive due process)
- Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997) (dismissal of bald legal conclusions is proper)