Case Information
*1 UN I TE D S T A TE S D I S T R I C T C OU R T
D I S T R I C T O F N E W J E R S E Y T R OY H E ND E R S ON , C i v il A c ti on N o . 14 - 7708 ( M C A ) P l a i n ti ff , O P I N I ON V. UN I ON C OUN T Y , N . J ., e t a l ., D e f e nd a n t s . A R LE O , U n it e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J udg e : I . I N T R
ODU C T I ON T h i s m a tt e r h a s b ee n op e n e d t o t h e C ou r t by P l a i n ti ff s f ili ng o f a C o m p l a i n t a ll e g i ng v i o l a ti on s o f h i s c i v il r i gh t s pu r s u a n t t o 42 U . S . C . § 1983 . T h e C ou r t p r e v i ou s l y g r a n t e d P l a i n ti ff s a pp li ca ti on t o p r o cee d i n f o r m a p a up e r i s . F o r t h e r ea s on s e xp l a i n e d b e l o w , t h e C ou r t w ill d i s m i ss t h e C o m p l a i n t a s t o a ll D e f e nd a n t s . T o t h e e x t e n t P l a i n ti ff ca n p r ov i d e f ac t s t o c u r e t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e c l a i m s t h e C ou r t h a s d i s m i ss e d w it hou t p r e j ud i ce , h e m a y f il e a n A m e nd e d C o m p l a i n t w it h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e O r d e r acc o m p a ny i ng t h i s O p i n i on .
II . F A C T UA L B A C KG R OUND P l a i n ti ff a ll e g e s t h a t a T e m po r a r y R e s t r a i n i ng O r d e r ( “ T R O ” ) w a s e n t e r e d a g a i n s t h i m on M a y 4 , 2013 i n c onn ec ti on w it h a do m e s ti c v i o l e n ce i n c i d e n t t h a t o cc u rr e d on M a y 3 , 2013 . ( S ee E C F N o . 1 , C o m p l a i n t a t 7 . ) O n M a y 16 , 2013 , a j udg e i n t h e N e w J e r s e y C h a n ce r y C ou r t , F a m il y P a r t ( “ F a m il y P a r t ” ) , v aca t e d t h e T R O a nd d i s m i ss e d t h e do m e s ti c v i o l e n ce c o m p l a i n t . (I d . ) T h e g r a v a m e n o f P l a i n ti ff s C o m p l a i n t a pp ea r s t o b e t h a t D e f e nd a n t s s ub s e qu e n tl y pu r s u e d c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s a nd a n i nd i c t m e n t a g a i n s t h i m d e s p it e t h e f ac t t h a t t h e j udg e i n t h e F a m il y P a r t h a d v aca t e d t h e T R O a nd d i s m i ss e d t h e do m e s ti c v i o l e n ce c o m p l a i n t a r i s i ng fr o m t h e s a m e *2 incident. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiff apparently sought dismissal of the criminal indictment, which was denied by the Superior Court on May 4, 2014. (Id. at 7.) It is not clear whether Plaintiff was convicted of any criminal charges arising out of the domestic violence incident.
Plaintiff provides no facts about the underlying domestic violence incident or the reasons for the dismissal of the domestic violence complaint in the Family Part. He alleges, however, that the Union County Prosecutor Jason Gareis failed to provide jurors with the “actual facts” from the civil case that presumably would have undermined the criminal case. (Id. at 6-8.) Plaintiff also alleges that Assistant Prosecutor Tracy E. Boyd “perist[ed in] prosecuting this civil matter criminally with malice” and disregarded the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PVDA”), court rules, and other statutes. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff further alleges that Detective George Rivera coerced the Grand Jury with his statements and failed to mention the PDVA. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that Officer Melissa A. Howell, who investigated the domestic violence incident “did not file an immediate appeal of the [TRO] on Plaintiff’s behalf” and that Officer Dariusz Tokarz “was derelict in his duties [and] used the [TRO] as a [b]ootstrap mechanism[.]” (Id. at 4.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Regina Caulfield, J.S.C., “did not present to Plaintiff any documentation ofjurisdiction upon request[.]” (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff seeks damages and a restraining order to prevent Defendants from retaliating against him.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW Under the PLRA, district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a person is proceeding in formapauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune *3 from such relief. Id. “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing A/lah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)); Mitchell v, Beard, 492 F. App’x 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l)); Courteau v. United States, 287 F. App’x 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), courts first separate the factual and legal elements of the claims, and accept all of the well-pleaded facts as true. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 2 10—1 1 (3d Cir. 2009). All reasonable inferences must be made in the plaintiffs favor. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). The Complaint must also allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMSShadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Courts are required to liberally construe pleadings drafted by pro se parties. Tucker v. Hewlett Packard, Inc., No. 14-4699 (RBK/KMW), 2015 WL 6560645, at *2 (D.NJ. Oct. 29, 2015) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Such pleadings are “held to less strict standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. Nevertheless, pro se litigants must still allege facts, which if taken as true, will suggest the required elements of any claim that is asserted. Id. (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)). To do *4 so, [a plaintiff] must plead enough facts, accepted as true, to plausibly suggest entitlement to relief.” Gibney v. Fitzgibbon, 547 F. App t x 111, 113 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352. 365 (3d Cir. 2012)). Furthermore, “[l]iberal construction does not, however, require the Court to credit a pro se plaintiffs ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.’ Id. (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). That is, “[e]ven apro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the allegations set forth by the plaintiff cannot be construed as supplying facts to support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. Id. (citing Milhouse v. Carison. 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981)).
IV. ANALYSiS The Court construes Plaintiff to raise claims pursuant to § 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff may have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain violations of his constitutional rights. Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
Thus, “to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law.” See West v. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42,48(1988); Maileats v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).
The Court will dismiss with prejudice the Complaint as to the Plainfield Police Department. In New Jersey, a municipal police department is not an entity separate from the l The Court does not construe Plaintiff to raise any claims arising under state law. *5 m un i c i p a lit y . S ee N . J . S t a t . A nn . § 40 A : 14 - 118 ( m un i c i p a l po li ce d e p a r t m e n t i s ‘ a n e x ec u ti v e a nd e n f o r ce m e n t f un c ti on o f m un i c i p a l gov e r n m e n t ” ) . A s s u c h , t h e P l a i n f i e l d P o li ce D e p a r t m e n t i s no t a p r op e r d e f e nd a n t s i n t h i s ac ti on . S ee P a d ill a v . T w p . o f C h e rr y H ill , 110 F . A ppx . 272 , 278 ( 3d C i r . 2004 ) ( “ I n S ec ti on 1983 ac ti on s , po li ce d e p a r t m e n t s ca nno t b e s u e d i n c on j un c ti on w it h m un i c i p a liti e s , b eca u s e t h e po li ce d e p a r t m e n t i s m e r e l y a n a d m i n i s t r a ti v e a r m o f t h e l o ca l m un i c i p a lit y , a nd i s no t a s e p a r a t e j ud i c i a l e n tit y . ” ) ( quo ti ng D e B e lli s v . K u l p , 166 F . S upp . 2d 255 , 264 ( E . D . P a . 2001 )) .
T h e C ou r t w ill a l s o d i s m i ss t h e C o m p l a i n t w it hou t p r e j ud i ce a s t o U n i on C oun t y . “ [ A ] l o ca l gov e r n m e n t m a y no t b e s u e d und e r § 1983 f o r a n i n j u r y i n f li c t e d s o l e l y by it s e m p l oy ee s o r a g e n t s . ” A nd r e w s v . C it y o f P h il a d e l ph i a , 895 F . 2d 1469 , 1480 ( 3d C i r . 1990 ) . I n s t ea d , it i s w h e n “e x ec u ti on o f a gov e r n m e n t ’ s po li c y o r c u s t o m , w h e t h e r m a d e by it s l a w m a k e r s o r by t ho s e w ho s e e d i c t s o r ac t s m a y f a i r l y b e s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t o ff i c i a l po li c y , i n f li c t s t h e i n j u r y ” t h a t t h e gov e r n m e n t a s a n e n tit y i s r e s pon s i b l e und e r § 1983 . I d . ( c it a ti on s o m itt e d ) . “ A gov e r n m e n t po li c y o r c u s t o m ca n b e e s t a b li s h e d i n t w o w a y s . P o li c y i s m a d e w h e n a ‘ d ec i s i on m a k e r po ss e ss [ i ng ] f i n a l a u t ho r it y t o e s t a b li s h m un i c i p a l po li c y w it h r e s p ec t t o t h e ac ti on ’ i ss u e s a n o ff i c i a l p r o c l a m a ti on , po li c y , o r e d i c t . ” A nd r e w s , 895 F . 2d a t 1480 ( quo ti ng P e m b a u r v . C it y o f C i n c i nn a ti , 475 U . S . 469 , 481 . ( 1986 )) . “ A c ou r s e o f c ondu c t i s c on s i d e r e d t o b e a ‘ c u s t o m ’ w h e n , t hough no t a u t ho r i ze d by l a w , ‘ s u c h p r ac ti ce s o f s t a t e o ff i c i a l s [ a r e ] s o p e r m a n e n t a nd w e ll s e ttl e d ’ a s t o v i r t u a ll y c on s tit u t e l a w . ” A nd r e w s , 895 F . 2d a t 1480 . H e r e . P l a i n ti ff h a s no t a ll e g e d t h a t a po li c y o r c u s t o m ca u s e d h i s a ll e g e d i n j u r i e s a nd h i s c l a i m s a g a i n s t U n i on C oun t y a pp ea r t o b e p r e m i s e d on t h e C oun t y ’ s e m p l oy m e n t o f a ll e g e d w r ongdo e r s . w h i c h i s no t a b a s i s f o r li a b ilit y und e r § 1983 . A s s u c h , t h e C ou r t w ill d i s m i ss w it hou t p r e j ud i ce t h e c l a i m s a s t o U n i on C oun t y .
*6 T h e C ou r t w ill d i s m i ss t h e C o m p l a i n t a s t o J udg e C a u l f i e l d f o r f a il u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r r e li e f . I t w e ll s e ttl e d t h a t j udg e s a r e a b s o l u t e l y i mm un i ze d fr o m a c i v il r i gh t s s u it f o r m on e y d a m a g e s a r i s i ng fr o m t h e i r j ud i c i a l ac t s . M i r e / e s v . W ac o . 502 U . S . 9 , 9 ( 1991 ) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ; S t u m p v . S p a r k m a n , 435 U . S . 349 , 356 — 57 ( 1978 ) . A j udg e w ill no t b e d e p r i v e d o f i mm un it y b eca u s e t h e ac ti on [ s ] h e t ook w a s i n e rr o r , w a s don e m a li c i ou s l y , o r w a s i n e x ce ss o f h i s a u t ho r it y ; r a t h e r , [ s j h e w ill b e s ub j ec t t o li a b ilit y on l y w h e n [ s ] h e h a s ac t e d i n t h e ‘ c l ea r a b s e n ce o f a ll j u r i s d i c ti on . ” S t u m p , 435 U . S . a t 357 ( c it a ti on s o m itt e d ) . H e r e , P l a i n ti ff h a s v a gu e l y a ss e r t s t h a t J udg e C a u l f i e l d “ d i d no t p r e s e n t t o P l a i n ti ff a ny do c u m e n t a ti on o f j u r i s d i c ti on upon r e qu e s t [ . ] ”
T o t h e e x t e n t P l a i n ti ff i s a ll e g i ng t h a t D e f e nd a n t C a u l f i e l d ac t e d i n t h e c l ea r a b s e n ce o f a ll j u r i s d i c ti on , t h i s a ll e g a ti on i s c on c l u s o r y a nd no t e n titl e d t o t h e p r e s u m p ti on o f t r u t h und e r I qb a l , 556 U . S . a t 679 ( p e r m itti ng c ou r t s t o i d e n ti f y “ p l ea d i ng s t h a t , b eca u s e t h e y a r e no m o r e t h a n c on c l u s i on s , a r e no t e n titl e d t o t h e a ss u m p ti on o f t r u t h ” ) . D e f e nd a n t h a s p r ov i d e d no a dd iti on a l f ac t s t o s uppo r t h i s a ll e g a ti on t h a t D e f e nd a n t C a u l f i e l d l ac k e d j u r i s d i c ti on ov e r h i s c r i m i n a l ca s e . A s s u c h , t h e C o m p l a i n t i s d i s m i ss e d w it hou t p r e j ud i ce a s t o t h i s D e f e nd a n t .
T h e C ou r t w ill a l s o d i s m i ss t h e C o m p l a i n t a s t o P r o s ec u t o r D e f e nd a n t s G a r e i s a nd B oyd on t h e b a s i s o f p r o s ec u t o r i a l i mm un it y . “ [ A l s t a t e p r o s ec u ti ng a tt o r n e y w ho ac t [ s ] w it h i n t h e s c op e o f h i s du ti e s i n i n iti a ti ng a nd pu r s u i ng a c r i m i n a l p r o s ec u ti on ” i s no t a m e n a b l e t o s u it und e r § 1983 . I m b l e r v . P ac h t m a n , 424 U . S . 409 , 410 ( 1976 ) ; s ee a l s o K u l w i c k i v . D a w s on , 969 F . 2d 1454 , 1465 ( 3d C i r . 1992 ) ; S c h r ob v . C a tt e r s on . 948 F . 2d 1402 , 1417 ( 3d C i r . 1991 ) ; R o s e v . B a r ti e , 871 F . 2d 331 , 345 a nd n . 12 ( 3d C i r . 1989 ) . S i n ce 1 m b / e r , t h e S up r e m e C ou r t h a s h e l d t h a t “a b s o l u t e i mm un it y a pp li e s w h e n a p r o s ec u t o r p r e p a r e s t o i n iti a t e a j ud i c i a l p r o cee d i ng , o r a pp ea r s i n c ou r t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n ce i n s uppo r t o f a s ea r c h w a rr a n t a pp li ca ti on . ” V a n d e K a m p v .
*7 G o l d s t e i n , 555 U . S . 335 , 343 ( 2009 ) ( c it a ti on s o m itt e d ) ; s ee a l s o L e B l a n c v . S t e d m a n , 483 F . A ppx 666 ( 3d C i r . 2012 ) . “ [ A ] c t s und e r t a k e n by a p r o s ec u t o r i n p r e p a r i ng f o r t h e i n iti a ti on o f j ud i c i a l p r o cee d i ng s o r f o r t r i a l , a nd w h i c h o cc u r i n t h e c ou r s e o f h i s r o l e a s a n a dvo ca t e f o r t h e [ gov e r n m e n t ] , a r e e n titl e d t o t h e p r o t ec ti on s o f a b s o l u t e i mm un it y . ” B u c k l e y v . F it z s i mm on s , 509 U . S . 259 , 273 ( 1993 ) .
T h e i mm un it y a ff o r d e d t o p r o s ec u t o r s i s v e r y b r o a d a nd e x t e nd s t o a ny ac t s t h e p r o s ec u t o r und e r t a k e s “a s t h e s t a t e ’ s ‘ a dvo ca t e , ” Y a r n s v . C oun t y o f D e l a w a r e , 465 F . 3d 129 , 136 ( 3d C i r . 2006 ) , a nd i s no t d e f ea t e d by a ll e g a ti on s t h a t t h e p r o s ec u t o r ac t e d i n b a d f a it h , s ee E r n s t v . C h il d & Y ou t h S e r v s ., 108 F . 3d 486 , 502 ( 3d C i r . 1997 ) , o r “c o mm it [ t e d ] p e r j u r y o r f a l s i f i e [ d ] e v i d e n ce , ” D a v i s v . G r u s e m e y e r , 996 F . 2d 617 , 630 n . 27 ( 3d C i r . 1993 ) , ov e rr u l e d on o t h e r g r ound s by R ob v . C it y I nv e s ti ng C o . L i qu i d a ti ng T r u s t , 155 F . 3d 644 ( 3d C i r . 1998 ) . P r o s ec u t o r s a r e a l s o a b s o l u t e l y i mm un e fr o m a c i v il s u it f o r d a m a g e s und e r § 1983 f o r : ( 1 ) i n s tit u ti ng g r a nd j u r y p r o cee d i ng s w it hou t p r op e r i nv e s ti g a ti on a nd w it hou t a good f a it h b e li e f t h a t a ny w r ongdo i ng o cc u rr e d , S c h r ob , 948 F . 2d a t 1411 ; ( 2 ) s o li c iti ng f a l s e t e s ti m ony fr o m w it n e ss e s i n g r a nd j u r y p r o cee d i ng s , p r ob a b l e ca u s e h ea r i ng s , a nd t r i a l s , B u r n s v . R ee d , 500 U . S . 478 , 490 ( 1991 ) ; K u l w i c k i , 969 F . 2d a t 1467 ; a nd ( 4 ) t h e kno w i ng u s e o f p e r j u r e d t e s ti m ony i n a j ud i c i a l p r o cee d i ng , I m b l e r , 424 U . S . a t 424 - 27 ; S c h r ob , 948 F . 2d a t 1417 ; B r a w e r v . H o r o w it z , 535 F . 2d 830 ( 3d C i r . 1976 ) . “ [ A ] b s o l u t e i mm un it y a pp li e s w h e n a p r o s ec u t o r p r e p a r e s t o i n iti a t e a j ud i c i a l p r o cee d i ng , o r a pp ea r s i n c ou r t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n ce i n s uppo r t o f a s ea r c h w a rr a n t a pp li ca ti on . ” T ”a n d e K a n ’ z p , 555 U . S . a t 343 ( c it a ti on s o m itt e d ) (f u r t h e r ho l d i ng t h a t a s up e r v i s o r y p r o s ec u t o r i s a b s o l u t e l y i mm un e f o r f a ili ng t o a d e qu a t e l y t r a i n a nd s up e r v i s e d i s t r i c t a tt o r n e y s on t h e du t y no t t o w it hho l d i m p eac h m e n t e v i d e n ce a nd t h e f a il u r e t o c r ea t e a ny s y s t e m f o r acce ss i ng i n f o r m a ti on p e r t a i n i ng t o t h e b e n e f it s p r ov i d e d t o j a il hou s e i n f o r m a n t s ) . A f a l s e l y
*8 c h a r g e d d e f e nd a n t m a y b e “ r e m e d i e d by s a f e gu a r d s bu ilt i n t o t h e j ud i c i a l s y s t e m , ” s u c h a s d i s m i ss a l o f t h e c h a r g e s . K u l n ’ i c k i , 969 F . 2d a t 1464 .
H e r e , P l a i n ti ff’ s a ll e g a ti on s a g a i n s t D e f e nd a n t s G a r e i s a nd B oyd ce n t e r on t h e i r d ec i s i on t o c on ti nu e h i s p r o s ec u ti on a nd G a r e i s ’ s f a il u r e t o p r e s e n t e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n ce t o t h e G r a nd J u r y . B eca u s e D e f e nd a n t s G a r e i s a nd B oyd a r e e n titl e d t o p r o s ec u t o r i a l i mm un it y f o r t h e i r ac ti on s i n i n iti a ti ng a nd c on ti nu i ng P l a i n ti ff s p r o s ec u ti on , t h e C ou r t w ill d i s m i ss w it h p r e j ud i ce t h e C o m p l a i n t a s t o t h e s e D e f e nd a n t s on t h e b a s i s o f p r o s ec u t o r i a l i mm un it y .
W it h r e s p ec t t o t h e r e m a i n i ng D e f e nd a n t s — D e f e nd a n t s R i v e r a , H o w e ll , a nd T ok a r z — t h e C ou r t c on s t r u e s P l a i n ti ff t o a ll e g e a § 1983 c l a i m f o r m a li c i ou s p r o s ec u ti on . 2 T o p l ea d a c l a i m f o r m a li c i ou s p r o s ec u ti on , a p l a i n ti ff m u s t s ho w t h a t ( 1 ) t h e d e f e nd a n t s i n iti a t e d a c r i m i n a l p r o cee d i ng ; ( 2 ) t h e c r i m i n a l p r o cee d i ng e nd e d i n p l a i n ti ff’ s f a vo r ; ( 3 ) t h e p r o cee d i ng w a s i n iti a t e d w it hou t p r ob a b l e ca u s e ; ( 4 ) t h e d e f e nd a n t s ac t e d m a li c i ou s l y o r f o r a pu r po s e o t h e r t h a n b r i ng i ng t h e p l a i n ti ff t o j u s ti ce ; a nd ( 5 ) t h e p l a i n ti ff s u ff e r e d d e p r i v a ti on o f li b e r t y c on s i s t e n t w it h t h e c on ce p t o f s e i z u r e a s a c on s e qu e n ce o f a l e g a l p r o cee d i ng . 3 S ee K o ss l e r v . C r i s c i n ti , 564 F . 3d 181 , 186 ( 3d C i r . 2009 ) ; M a / c o m b v . M c K ea n , 535 F . A pp ’ x 184 , 186 ( 3d C i r . 2013 ) . [2] T h e C ou r t c on s t r u e s P l a i n ti ff c l a i m t h a t D e f e nd a n t s v i o l a t e d h i s f e d e r a l c on s tit u ti on a l r i gh t s by b r i ng i ng c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m a f t e r t h e T R O a nd do m e s ti c v i o l e n ce c o m p l a i n t w a s d i s m i ss e d by F a m il y P a r t j u dg e a s a m a li c i ou s p r o s ec u t i o n c l a i m . T o t h e e x t e n t P l a i n ti ff a l s o a ll e g e s t h a t a ny o f t h e D e f e nd a n t s v i o l a t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f c o ll a t e r a l e s t opp e l a s e m bod i e d i n t h e D oub l e J e op a r dy C l a u s e o r s t a t e c on s tit u ti on a l e qu i v a l e n t w h e n t h e y p r o s ec u t e d h i m a f t e r t h e d i s m i ss a l o f t h e do m e s ti c v i o l e n ce c o m p l a i n t i n t h e F a m il y P a r t , t h a t v e r y a r gu m e n t h a s b ee n c on s i d e r e d a nd r e j ec t e d by t h e N e w J e r s e y c ou r t s . S ee S t a t e v . B r o w n , 394 N . J . S up e r . 492 , 506 - 07 ( A pp . D i v . 2007 ) ( N e it h e r t h e c o ll a t e r a l e s t opp e l c o m pon e n t o f t h e D oub l e J e op a r dy C l a u s e no r t h e do c t r i n e o f f und a m e n t a l f a i r n e ss p r ec l ud e s t h e S t a t e fr o m p r o s ec u ti ng a d e f e nd a n t i nd i c t e d f o r a c h a r g e t h a t f o r m e d t h e b a s i s o f a n un s u cce ss f u l do m e s ti c v i o l e n ce c o m p l a i n t . )
T h e r e m a i n i ng D e f e nd a n t s a r e D e t ec ti v e R i v e r a , O ff i ce r H o w e ll , a nd O ff i ce r T ok a r z . A lt hough p r o s ec u t o r s t y p i ca l l y i n i t i a t e p r o cee d i n g s a g a i n s t c r i m i n a l d e f e nd a n t s , li a b ilit y f o r m a li c i ou s p r o s ec u ti on ca n a l s o a tt ac h w h e n ‘[ a ] d e f e nd a n t i n f l u e n ce s a t h i r d p a r t y t o i n iti a t e t h e p r o cee d i ng s . ” B r i s t o w v . C l e v e ng e r , 80 F . S upp . 2d 421 , 432 ( M . D . P a . 2000 ) ( c iti ng G il b e r t v . F e l d , 788 F . S upp . 854 , 861 ( E . D . P a . 1992 )) . N o t a b l y , a l a w e n f o r ce m e n t o ff i ce r m a y b e li a b l e
*9 The Court will dismiss without prejudice the malicious prosecution claim against the remaining Defendants because Plaintiff has not alleged that the criminal proceeding arising out of the domestic violence incident terminated in his favor. The favorable termination requirement exists ‘ito avoid ‘the possibility of the claimant [sic] succeeding in the tort action after having been convicted in the underlying criminal prosecution, in contravention of a strong judicial policy against the creation of two conflicting resolutions arising out of the same or identical transaction.” Kossler, 564 F.3d at 187 (alteration in original) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.s. 477, 484 (1994)). To avoid such a conflicting outcome, the prior disposition of the criminal case must show “the innocence of the accused.” Malcomb, 535 F. App’x at 186 (citing Kossler, 564 F.3d at 186). Here, Plaintiff provides no facts suggesting that the criminal proceeding at issue ultimately terminated in his favor. Indeed, the only facts Plaintiff provides about the outcome of the criminal proceeding acknowledges that his motion to dismiss the indictment was denied. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint within 30 days to the extent the criminal proceeding terminated in his favor and he is able to meet the other elements of a malicious prosecution claim. for malicious prosecution where he “influenced or participated in the decision to institute criminal proceedings.” Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 297 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308—09, 317 (6th Cir.20l0)); accord Henderson v. City of Philadelphia, 853 F.Supp.2d 514, 518 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (“Although prosecutors rather than police officers are generally responsible for initiating criminal proceedings, an officer may ... be considered to have initiated a criminal proceeding if he or she knowingly provided false information to the prosecutor or otherwise interfered with the prosecutor’s informed discretion.”) (citing Brockinglon v. City ofPhiladelphia, 354 F.Supp.2d 563, 569 (E.D. Pa. 2005)). Because Plaintiff has not pleaded favorable termination, the Court need not address whether he provided sufficient facts to meet the other elements of a malicious prosecution claim.
*10 ___________ , 2017 V . C ON C L U S i ON F o r t h e r ea s on s e xp l a i n e d i n t h i s O p i n i on , t h e C o m p l a i n t i s d i s m i ss e d i n it s e n ti r e t y . T o t h e e x t e n t P l a i n ti ff ca n c u r e t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t ho s e c l a i m s t h e C ou r t h a s d i s m i ss e d w it hou t p r e j ud i ce , h e m a y f il e a n A m e nd e d C o m p l a i n t w it h i n 30 d a y s . A n a pp r op r i a t e O r d e r f o ll o w s .
M a d e li n e C ox A r l e o , U . S . D . J . D a t e