On Thursday, March 22, 2018, in the case titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, Appellant Marc Stephens filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.  Stephens is requesting the Supreme Court to reverse the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision, and send the $76 million case against the City of Englewood to trial.

In 2014, Marc Stephens filed a deprivation of civil right Complaint 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, malicious prosecution, and legal malpractice.

In 2017, the 3rd Circuit Judges Scirica, Restrepo, and Fisher 'affirmed' the District Court’s opinion that Police Officers are allowed to fabricate evidence against the accused.

District Court Judge William J. Martini stopped the $76 million civil case from going to trial by stating the following 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…”

Judge Martini, and the three judge panel, intentionally ignored Marc's evidence on record, and recited 'old case law' in an attempt to sabotage the case.

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

The Judicial Complaint reveals that the Englewood Police Department kidnapped and framed Marc’s younger brother, Tyrone Stephens, who at the time was a minor, with multiple crimes.  Marc is requesting the chief judge to reverse the judges error of facts, which states witness Natalia Cortes identified Tyrone Stephens as a perpetrator.  The evidence on record clearly reveals Cortes 'did not' identify anyone.

Marc Stephens request for $76 million in damages is not unrealistic.  Under federal law, there are 'no caps' on the damages awarded in § 1983 civil rights claims.  A jury is not foreclosed from granting Marc Stephens the entire amount requested.