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, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution the Supreme Court of the United States has docketed Plaintiff Marc Stephens’ petition for writ of certiorari.

On March 22, 2018, Marc Stephens filed his petition for writ of certiorari with the highest court in the land. 

Due to Justice Alito granting Marc Stephens an extension to file, the petition was officially docketed with the United States Supreme Court on June 19, 2018 as Marc A. Stephens vs City of Englewood et al, case No. 17-9444.

Stephens is requesting the Supreme Court to reverse the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit erroneous decision, and send the case to trial.

The 3rd Circuit 'affirmed' the District Court’s opinion that Police Officers are allowed to fabricate evidence against black criminal defendants.

District Court Judge William J. Martini stopped the case from going to trial by stating 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…”

Marc Stephens’ petition 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 case is regarding Marc Stephens’ younger brother, Tyrone Stephens, 17, who was falsely accused of a crime, and maliciously prosecuted by several Englewood Police Officers. 

Marc Stephens is also claiming that the Englewood Police Department kidnapped Tyrone.  During the investigation, not one victim or codefendant mentioned Tyrone's name.  It was the Englewood Police that used Tyrone's name as the suspect.  The officers later searched the neighborhood looking for Tyrone in order to arrest him for a crime he clearly did not commit.

Evidence on record reveal that the officers fabricated police reports, witness statements, and gave false testimony to a grand jury in order to establish probable cause against Tyrone.  Tyrone spent 1 year and 35 days in Bergen County Jail.

The Chief Judge of the 3rd circuit is still reviewing a judicial misconduct complaint filed by Marc Stephens.

Counsel for the City of Englewood must file a brief in opposition to Stephens’ petition for Writ of Certiorari by July 19, 2018.


Copy of Marc Stephens' Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Copy of Supreme Court Notice to Counsel for City of Englewood, et al.