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 Plaintiffs Marc Stephens has requested an internal investigation with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding obstruction of justice - Tampering with Evidence and Spoliation of evidence.

On May 3, 2017, a three judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard and dismissed Appellant Marc Stephens $76M lawsuit.

On May 6, 2017, Marc Stephens submitted three motions -- a Motion for Clarification on the local rules for filing a Petition for Rehearing, Motion to Compel Investigation of Evidence, and a Motion for Extension of Time.

On June 26, 2017, the court granted Marc Stephens’ motions for clarification and extension of time to file his Petition for Rehearing, but denied his Motion to Compel Confirmation of ECF Evidence on Court Record.

The court order reads:

“The foregoing motion is granted to the extent Appellants seek clarification and an extension of time. It is denied to the extent it seeks to compel confirmation of ecf evidence. Appellants are hereby advised that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for the filing of a petition for rehearing following the entry of judgment. The rules do not provide for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. The Court allows for the filing of one rehearing petition, so Appellants may request panel rehearing or en banc rehearing in the same document. The deadline for filing a petition for rehearing will be extended to 30 days from the date of this order”. “Appellants’ request to compel ECF evidence is denied without prejudice to raising these issues in a petition for rehearing”.

Marc Stephens has since filed a Motion for Reconsideration.  He argues that the court confirmed his evidence was on record before the opening briefs were filed.

“The court stated that our evidence was on record before the Panel reviewed the briefs, “[F]or appeals from the district court, please keep in mind that the entire district court record is transmitted to the court of appeals and is available for the court's review”, Document: 003112369595, page 6. Yet, All judges are stating that they did not see any evidence, which is clearly on record. This is causing prejudice, and is violating our rights to due process. We have pointed to the evidence in our opposition briefs, and motion for reconsideration briefs, ECF 85. Which presents our evidence in detail, and address the courts opinion with specificity".

If the court confirms the evidence, Marc wins the case. If they do not confirm the evidence, Marc still has the opportunity to submit a Petition for Rehearing the case, which he can resubmit the evidence to the Panel of Judges.

Copy of Marc Stephens’ Motion for Reconsideration - 2 pages