In the $76 Million case titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, docket no. 19-1447, Appellant Marc Stephens has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against all defendants, and Judges Anthony Joseph Scirica, Luis Felipe Restrepo, and Dennis Michael Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The mandamus also includes Judge William J. Martini from the United States District Court in Newark.

On February 27, 2019, Stephens filed the petition for writ of mandamus requesting the court to reverse the judge's errors.

A writ of mandamus is used to correct clear errors of fact, law, abuse of discretion, and “usurpation of judicial power” committed by judges.

A district court abuses its discretion if it (1) relies on clearly erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) misapplies the law to the facts. Marc Stephens argues that the judges intentionally ignored his evidence, and violated his right to due process, and trial, when they granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a): “If the evidence “presents a sufficient disagreement” over a factual issue, summary judgment must be denied.”

The 3rd Circuit and District Court Judges erroneously granted the City of Englewood’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the $76 million case for the following three (3) reasons:

“The facts here, viewed most favorably to the Stephenses, do not create a genuine dispute as to whether probable cause existed when Tyrone was arrested. The defendants had three compelling pieces of evidence implicating Tyrone in the attack: (1) the identification by Natalia Cortes; (2) the statement made by Justin Evans that Tyrone had participated in the attack; and (3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi. This evidence was more than sufficient to establish probable cause.”

In order to head to trial, all Marc Stephens had to do was submit “disputed facts”, and he did.  The record is loaded with sufficient disagreements of facts and law.

First, the record shows, without a doubt, that Natalia never identified anyone. The Englewood Police reports clearly reveals this fact. The report states:

“During said photo array, Natalia was unable to pick anyone out. McDonald advised me that the individual that was placed in the photo array was a possible suspect Victory Sarhano..”No photo of any other juvenile suspect was used in this photo array”, Doc: 003112688916, defendants SA177. EXHIBIT 4.

Tyrone, at the time, was a Juvenile, and his photo ‘was not’ in the photo array.

“Photo array eyewitness identification worksheet for Natalia states the following:

“Did the witness identify any photo as depicting the perpetrator?” The answer checked is “No”, SA186, #20 also same ECF Doc. 42, page 9. #20. EXHIBIT 5.

In addition, during Tyrone Stephens’ probable cause hearing Natalia Cortes testified she did not identify anyone.

“Jordan Comet (Q). Did you witness Mr. Stephens fighting that night? Natalia Cortes (A). I didn’t quite see anybody’s faces who were actually fighting”. SA234, Doc 003112432109, Page: 80, para #9, #7-10. EXHIBIT 7.

Second, Justin Evans ‘testified’ that he was coerced by Englewood Detectives Marc McDonald and Desmond Singh to implicate Tyrone Stephens. In fact, Detective Marc McDonald ‘testified’ that he coerced Justin Evans to implicate himself, and Tyrone Stephens.

Third, there was never inconsistencies in Tyrone Stephens’ alibi. The incident took place in the parking lot of “7-eleven at 10pm”, and Detective Marc McDonald is on audio confirming that Detective Nathaniel Kinlaw confirmed seeing Tyrone at “McDonald’s restaurant at 10pm”, which is almost 1 mile away from the incident.

If Tyrone was located at McDonald’s at 10pm, then it is impossible for him to be located at the 7-eleven incident at 10pm.

The police report also states that the ski-mask suspect ran “North” towards Tenafly Road and Liberty Road. McDonalds is located “South”.

The City of Englewood and the Englewood Police Department are allowed to file a response to Stephens petition of mandamus at the court’s request.

Marc Stephens has requested for oral argument.



Copy of Marc Stephens Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Copy of Marc Stephens Exhibits 1-18

Copy of Marc Stephens Oral Argument Request