3rd Circuit Judges Scirica, Restrepo, and Fisher Refuse to Send $76M Lawsuit against City of Englewood to Trial
In a $76 million civil lawsuit against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, Det. Marc McDonald, Det. Desmond Singh, Det. Claudia Cubillos, Det. Santiago Incle Jr., Det. Nathaniel Kinlaw, Nina C. Remson Attorney At Law, LLC, and Comet Law Offices, LLC., for false arrest, conspiracy, defamation, fabricating evidence, and false imprisonment, malicious prosecution Judges Scirica, Restrepo, and Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit DENIED Marc Stephens Petition for Rehearing and Hearing Enbanc.
On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff Marc Stephens filed his Petition for Rehearing and Hearing Enbanc. Marc requested for the entire 3rd Circuit to review the case. All 13 active judges were called to review the case.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017, the 3rd Circuit issued an order, without an opinion, denying Marc Stephens’ $76 million lawsuit against the defendants. The order reads:
“Present: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE, AMBRO, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, SCIRICA and FISHER”.
“The petition for rehearing filed by appellants, Mark A. Stephens and Tyrone K. Stephens in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is denied”.
The 3rd Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinion that Police Officers can fabricate evidence against the accused, and coerce juveniles in the presence of their parents.
District Court Judge William J. Martini states in his opinion, “Second, even if Tyrone did offer such evidence, “[i]t is well settled that police officers are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for giving allegedly perjured testimony…” Blacknall v. Citarella, 168 Fed.Appx. 489, 492 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), see Order page 8.
Marc Stephens petition for rehearing recites the following opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
“Police officers are not absolutely immune from§ 1983 suits for damages for giving allegedly perjured testimony. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court stated, “Qualified immunity does not protect police officers who are "plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L. Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986). See Plaintiffs Brief, document 72, page 5. The common law has never granted police officers an absolute and unqualified immunity, Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547 - Supreme Court 1967, at 555. The United States Supreme Court has made it "clear that procedural regularity notwithstanding, the Due Process Clause is violated by the knowing use of perjured testimony or the deliberate suppression of evidence favorable to the accused." (Albright v. Oliver (1994) 510 U.S. 266, 299 [127 L.Ed.2d 114, 114 S.Ct. 807] (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).)
“A police officer who fabricates evidence against a criminal defendant to obtain his conviction violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law”. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F. 3d 273 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2014 at 279.
The 3rd Circuit went against their own legal precedent. The decision forces Marc Stephens to the Supreme Court.
“What most people fail to realize is that judges can sabotage a case based on ‘Public Interest’. They look at the evidence and say this will cause too much damage to the public if we find these public officials liable. Our case involves too many public officials. The City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, 8 detectives and the Chief of Police, the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office, and two lawyers, who were all clearly caught violating constitutional rights”, says Marc Stephens.
“The judges also violated our rights to due process and right to trial. We were only at the summary judgment stage, and judges are not allowed to ‘weigh the evidence’ or determine the truth of the facts. They are supposed to look for ‘a genuine disagreement of the facts’. The City of Englewood argued that the incident took place ‘at 7-eleven at 10:12pm’. We put forth evidence that Detective Marc McDonald testified that the incident took place ‘at 10pm’. They also testified that Tyrone was not at 7-eleven at 10pm. The judges were supposed to send the case to trial, but they ruled outside of their jurisdiction as judges by acting like the jury in this case”, says Marc.
This will be the second time in 2017 that Marc Stephens, who is not a lawyer, has been to the Supreme Court. Marc’s last case titled ‘Marc Stephens vs Jerejian’ forced New Jersey to make changes to their Firearm Laws.
Marc Stephens has until January 24, 2018, to submit his Writ of Certiorari to the ‘Supreme Court of the United States’ which is located in Washington D.C.
Copy of the Order