On February 14, 2022, Marc Stephens, filed a federal civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, CareOne Management, LLC, and several individuals for multiple violations of his constitutional rights including right to due process, illegal Search, and defamation of character.

According to the complaint, during a Covid-19 outbreak at the CareOne facility in Cresskill, Marc Stephens demanded that his mother be released. Multiple staff and patients tested positive for Covid-19, and a patient allegedly died next door to his mother’s room.  CareOne refused to release his mother, despite the fact she was only there for voluntary rehab.

On April 1, 2022, the defendants CareOne at Cresskill, who is represented by lawyer Mary E. Toscano of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., filed their motion to dismiss the case.

CareOne argues that Stephens’ only federal claim against the CareOne Defendants for violation of due process, pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, should be dismiss because CareOne is a ‘private’ facility and are not under the control of the State or federal government.

On May 11, 2022, the City of Englewood and Englewood Police Department, who is represented by lawyer Dermot J. Doyle of Huntington Bailey, LLP, also filed a motion to dismiss the case.

The Englewood defendants argued that Stephens consented to a search of his home, and the court should not exercise federal jurisdiction over the case.

On November 4, 2022, Federal Judge Madeline Cox Arle, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, rendered a legal opinion and partially ruled in favor of Marc Stephens.

Judge Arleo states, “The Englewood Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not stated an Illegal Search claim because either Plaintiff consented to the search, or an emergency exception permitted the search. The Court disagrees”.

“Fourth Amendment protections require law enforcement officers to procure and execute a warrant before conducting a search, subject only to a few well recognized exceptions….Emergency situations are also exempt from the warrant requirement”.

“a physically present inhabitant's express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant. The court cannot find that he consented to a search of the second floor of the home”.

“[F]or the warrantless search to be constitutional, there must be probable cause and such other circumstances [as] would cause a reasonable person to believe that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.”

“Count IV may continue against the Englewood Defendants”, states Judge Arleo.

Judge Arleo dismissed Counts 1-3 in the complaint, but gave an order for Marc Stephens to amend his Complaint within 30 days, and either show that CareOne can be sued “personally”, or file the case in State court.

On November 28, 2022, Marc Stephens, who is on court record as the caretaker of his mother and attorney in fact, filed a motion for reconsideration in which he argues that a ‘private’ individual, or entity, can be sued for violations of constitutional rights, and that the court overlooked his ‘state actor’ argument, which already exist in the complaint.

Stephens argues in his motion, “As the Third Circuit has explained, "[a] private party who willfully participates in a joint conspiracy with state officials to deprive a person of a constitutional right acts 'under color of state law' for purposes of § 1983." Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141, 147-48 (3d Cir. 1998). Castillo v. GUZLEY, Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2019”.

"[T]here is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 US 991 - Supreme Court 1982 at 1004.

"[T]he Due Process Clause requires a showing of justification "when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements" in a manner which is contrary to deeply rooted traditions. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 US 374.: Supreme Court 1978 at 399-400”, says Marc Stephens.

The court gave the Englewood Defendants a deadline to submit all evidence requested by December 15, 2022.

Stephens’ motion for reconsideration is still pending. Stephens is requesting $6 million in damages from the Englewood defendants.

Copy of the Court's Letter Order