PRASAD v. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, 3:16-cv-07761

Background

On June 12, 2010 Prasad went to a former employee McVaugh’s home to retrieve company property; McVaugh called police and alleged forcible entry and assault. Two Toms River officers investigated and later Sergeant Maloney and Detective Santora became involved.
Maloney allegedly pressured employee James Hughes to change his initial account; Hughes first signed a statement implicating Prasad, then retracted, was pressured again, and ultimately gave a second statement under alleged coercion; Hughes later again retracted. Prasad was arrested and charged with burglary, witness tampering, and assault; witness-tampering charge was dismissed in 2015 and Prasad was acquitted of remaining charges in 2015.
Prasad sued six defendants including Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office (OCPO) and Assistant Prosecutor Kristin Pressman, asserting federal constitutional claims (Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments) for malicious prosecution, due process, Monell-type policy/custom failure to train/supervise (against OCPO), and a state-law malicious prosecution claim.
OCPO and Pressman moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing prosecutorial immunity, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for official-capacity claims, and lack of plausible pleading for Monell-type and due process claims.
The Court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the motion but dismissed: (1) individual-capacity claims against Pressman for Counts One and Three as barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity; (2) official-capacity Section 1983 claims against OCPO and Pressman as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (3) OCPO Monell/failure-to-train claim for lack of plausible causal allegations and sovereign immunity; and (4) state malicious-prosecution claim for lack of waiver of sovereign immunity. All dismissals were with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pressman is liable in her individual capacity under §1983 for malicious prosecution / due process for prosecuting witness-tampering charge	Pressad alleges Pressman conspired/acted to charge him without probable cause, violating Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments	Pressman is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for decisions to initiate/prosecute charges	Dismissed with prejudice: absolute prosecutorial immunity bars Counts One and Three against Pressman individually
Whether OCPO and Pressman in official capacity are subject to §1983 money damages for prosecution-related conduct	Prasad seeks $2M and alleges deprivation of constitutional rights by OCPO/Pressman	OCPO and Pressman claim Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; states/officials not "persons" under §1983	Dismissed with prejudice: Eleventh Amendment bars the official-capacity §1983 claims
Whether OCPO may be liable under §1983 for policy/custom/failure to train (Count Four)	Prasad alleges OCPO had customs/policies and was deliberately indifferent in supervision/training causing constitutional violations	OCPO asserts Eleventh Amendment bar for law-enforcement functions and that pleading is conclusory/lacks causation	Dismissed with prejudice: pleadings fail to allege plausible causal link/deliberate indifference and sovereign immunity applies to law-enforcement functions
Whether supplemental jurisdiction permits state common-law malicious prosecution claim against OCPO/Pressman (Count Five)	Prasad asserts state malicious prosecution under supplemental jurisdiction	Defendants argue Raygor/Eleventh Amendment preclude state-law claims against nonconsenting states; no waiver	Dismissed with prejudice: state did not waive sovereign immunity; court lacks jurisdiction over state claim

Key Cases Cited

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for conduct intimately associated with initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecutions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts disregard conclusory allegations and require plausibility)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state officials sued in their official capacity are not "persons" under §1983 for money damages)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against nonconsenting states in federal court)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process requires conduct that "shocks the conscience")
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability requires deliberate indifference in training causing constitutional violation)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§1983 provides remedy for deprivation of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law)
Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628 (3d Cir. 1995) (discussing §1983 framework and municipal liability standards)