Marc Stephens Reply Brief in $76M Lawsuit against City of Englewood Removed from the Record by 3rd Circuit Judges
On December 28, 2016, in the case titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, et al, Circuit Judges Chagares, Vanaskie And Krause from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Marc Stephens’ Motion to exceed the page and word limits, and requesting the court to relax the laws regarding the filing of his briefs. Marc Stephens, who is representing himself, is asking the Appellate Court to reverse the decision of District Court Judge William J. Martini who dismissed the civil complaint stating that the Englewood Police Department had probable cause to arrest Tyrone Stephens.
The 3rd Circuit Order denying Appellant Marc Stephens' motions reads as follow:
“Motion by Pro Se Appellants for Leave to File Two Separate Reply Briefs, Extend Page/Word Count for Reply Brief and Reconsider Previous Order dated 10/31/2016”.
“The foregoing motion is hereby denied”.
The case involves multiple parties, which includes, defendants 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.
Marc Stephens submitted a consolidated brief for the City of Englewood and all officers, which totaled 26 pages, and a second brief for Nina C. Remson Attorney At Law, LLC, which was 12 pages. Comet Law Offices, LLC never responded to the complaint.
Marc received a $10 million default judgment against Comet, but Judge William J. Martini of the District Court in Newark later reversed the Judgment order forcing Stephens to appeal.
Marc submitted a total of only '38 pages', which is normal due to the multiple parties involved with the case -- who all filed separate briefs.
The 3rd Circuit is now requesting that Stephens submit a 'consolidated' 15 page reply brief, for all defendants, and the brief can not exceed 7,000 words.
Marc Stephens argued in his motion to exceed the page/word limitations for his brief that it is impossible to address all of the legal points raised in each defendants brief with a 15 page limitation.
The City of Englewood submitted a '30 page' response brief. The Englewood Officers submitted a '33 page' response brief, and Remson a '22 page' response brief. In total, the defendants submitted 'three' separate response briefs totaling '85 pages'.
Marc Stephens’ reply brief is now stricken from the record, as if it never existed.
If you read Marc’s reply brief, it is 'loaded' with information that exposes how each officer involved with the criminal investigation from the Englewood Police Department were negligent, and fabricated sworn statements, police records, and testimony in order to frame his brother Tyrone Stephens, who was a juvenile at the time.
Marc Stephens raised an excellent argument that The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that all courts should relax the procedural rules when dealing with pro se litigants:
“[N]avigating the appellate process without a lawyer’s assistance is a perilous endeavor for a layperson.” Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 621 (2005) see also e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (emphasizing that “[a] document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed’”); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (same); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (same). Accordingly, this Court can and should excuse inadvertent failures to comply with the Court’s rules when they result from the difficulties inherent in proceeding pro se. Cf. Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 64 (1970) (“The procedural rules adopted by the Court for the orderly transaction of its business … can be relaxed by the Court in the exercise of its discretion when the ends of justice so require.”).
In this case, the 3rd circuit refused to relax the procedural rules for Marc Stephens.
In fact, lawyer for the City of Englewood, Mr. Adam Kenny, raised the argument that the court should treat Marc Stephens as a 'licensed attorney' due to his extensive knowledge of the law.
By limiting the brief to 15 pages, it prevents the details of Marc’s legal argument to be included on the record.
The way in which Marc Stephens prepares his briefs, anyone can read and understand it because he gets straight to the point. When you read the first 2 pages of his reply brief, you will quickly realize that Marc has a winning case.
All evidence on record reveals that the incident took place in the parking lot of 7 eleven in Englewood at 10pm. The investigating officers 'testified' that Tyrone Stephens was located at McDonald’s at 10pm.
Marc Stephens also argued at a pre-trial hearing that the Englewood Police Department destroyed the video surveillance tape of the incident which proved Tyrone was 'not' at 7-eleven at 10pm. Detective Marc McDonald 'testified' in court that the video tape 'showed the incident' which took place at 10pm. As soon as the time reaches 9:59pm, the video shuts off.
Only corruption beats this case.
Marc Stephens is ordered to file the new reply brief within 14 days. Marc and Tyrone Stephens are seeking $76 million in damages. Copies of the briefs and court order are below.
City of Englewood Response Brief
Englewood Officers Response Brief
Nina C. Remson Attorney At Law, LLC Response Brief
Marc Stephens Reply Brief - City of Englewood and Officers - A Must Read!
Marc Stephens Reply Brief - Remson - A Must Read!
Copy of the Order