VENEZIA v. UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE et al

Filing 63

OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 5/31/2011. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SUZANNE VENEZIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-6692 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, brings this action containing
apparent claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and
personal injury in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”)
and state law.

(Dkt. entry no. 4, Am. Compl.)

As far as this

Court can discern, (1) the plaintiff was arrested by police
officers for the Borough of Brielle after a family dispute, and
charged with assault and trespass, (2) a temporary restraining
order (“Restraining Order”) was issued directing the plaintiff to
not contact the family members with whom she had the dispute, (3)
the plaintiff was briefly held at the Monmouth County Correctional
Institution, and (4) the charges and the Restraining Order were
dismissed.

Also as far as this Court can discern, (1) a warrant

was issued for the plaintiff’s arrest in Union County for a
violation of the Restraining Order, (2) the plaintiff was arrested
by police officers for the Township of Cranford, and (3) the
charge related to the Restraining Order violation was dismissed.

THE DEFENDANTS now separately move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

(Dkt. entry nos. 11, 22, 52.)

This Court will grant

the separate motions and dismiss the Amended Complaint in its
entirety, as the Amended Complaint (1) is in violation of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 8(a), 8(d), and 10(b), and (2)
contains certain allegations that are barred by the immunity
doctrine.
THE PLAINTIFF is no stranger to civil litigation, and has
been directed on at least one occasion elsewhere on the proper
way to draft a complaint.

See Venezia v. Manasquan Police

Department, No. 10-4634. dkt. entry no. 16, 10-15-10 Order.

The

Amended Complaint cites federal and state statutes, but is
deficient because the allegations are presented in ways that defy
any meaningful opportunity for the defendants to respond.

The

Amended Complaint has forty footnotes; it should contain none.
THE FIRST TWELVE PAGES are dedicated to over-inclusive
details concerning the family dispute, including the alleged
opinions of the plaintiff’s family members on the plaintiff’s
termination of employment as a teacher and her divorce case.
Scattered throughout the Amended Complaint are references to the
plaintiff’s efforts to obtain certain records, her psychiatric
status, other litigation that she instituted in Pennsylvania, and
the conduct of other parties not named in this action.

2

Those

references appear to have no relevance to the claims against the
defendants listed in the Amended Complaint.
MOST of the paragraphs, which are numbered, improperly
contain multiple allegations.

There are several instances in the

Amended Complaint where phrases are unnecessarily underlined or
italicized.
THE AMENDED COMPLAINT presents a dense thicket of rambling
statements over the course of fifty-five pages, as well as 200
pages of exhibits — many of those exhibits being the plaintiff’s
own correspondence — that are annexed to the original Complaint.
It contains citations to case law and arguments that may be
appropriate for a brief, but that are inappropriate for
presentation in a complaint.
plain, concise, and direct.

The allegations are not short,
The Court will not require the

defendants to dissect these allegations in an effort to file
adequate answers.
THE AMENDED COMPLAINT also appears to challenge the conduct
and rulings by Brielle Municipal Court and New Jersey Superior
Court, Union County (“Local Court Claims”), even though those two
entities are not named as defendants.
46-47.)

(See Am. Compl. at 30-31,

doctrine.

The Local Court Claims are barred by the immunity
Municipal courts and state courts, and the judiciary

thereof, cannot be held civilly liable for judicially-related
conduct, even when those acts are in excess of their jurisdiction
3

and alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.

See

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Figueroa v.
Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 437, 440 (3d Cir. 2000).

Indeed,

municipal courts and state courts enjoy the same immunity from an
action brought under Section 1983 in federal court as do the
States themselves for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

See Callahan

v. Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 670-74 (3d Cir. 2000).
THIS COURT will grant the separate motions and dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

But the plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, will

be given one more opportunity to file a proper pleading.

Thus,

the dismissal will be without prejudice to the plaintiff to move
to reopen the action and for leave to file a second amended
complaint curing the deficiencies detailed above.

If the

plaintiff so moves, then a proposed second amended complaint must
be annexed as an exhibit for this Court to review.
THE PLAINTIFF, if moving to reopen, must address another
issue.

It appears that the plaintiff has instituted parallel

proceedings in New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, and
New Jersey Superior Court, Union County (“State Proceedings”).
See Venezia v. Borough of Brielle, No. 6388-10; Venezia v. Union
County Prosecutor’s Office, No. 5081-10.

“There is nothing

necessarily inappropriate . . . about filing a protective action”.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 294
n.9 (2005) (citing with approval Gov’t of V.I. v. Neadle, 861

4

F.Supp. 1054, 1055 (M.D. Fla. 1994), which stayed action brought
by plaintiffs “to protect themselves” if personal jurisdiction
over defendant failed in other court).

But if there are parallel

State Proceedings, then this Court would be inclined to abstain
pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which
authorizes a stay where a duplicate or parallel state court action
is pending, in consideration of wise judicial administration, the
conservation of judicial resources, and the comprehensive
disposition of litigation.

Colo. River Water Conservation Dist.

v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-19 (1976).
THE STATE PROCEEDINGS may “involve the same parties and
substantially identical claims, raising nearly identical
allegations and issues.”

IFC Interconsult v. Safeguard Int’l

Partners, 438 F.3d 298, 306 (3d Cir. 2006); see Flint v. A.P.
DeSanno & Sons, 234 F.Supp.2d 506, 510-11 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

This

Court would then consider: (1) the inconvenience of the federal
forum (“Convenience Factor”); (2) the desirability of avoiding
piecemeal litigation (“Piecemeal Factor”); (3) the order in which
jurisdiction has been obtained by the concurrent forums (“Forum
Factor”); (4) whether a federal question is presented (“Federal
Factor”); and (5) whether the State Proceedings would adequately
protect the plaintiff’s rights (“Rights Factor”).

Colo. River,

424 U.S. at 818-19; see Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury
Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 23, 26 (1983).

5

THE CONVENIENCE FACTOR would weigh in favor of abstention.
Plaintiff, as a Pennsylvania citizen, would be equally
inconvenienced traveling to either the state courts in Monmouth
County and Union County or the federal court in Trenton.

But

litigating in Monmouth County and Union County would be more
convenient for the respective defendants.

See Chiampi v. Bally’s

Park Place, No. 05-3395, 2007 WL 465469, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 7,
2007) (abstaining in favor of Atlantic County Superior Court
proceeding, even though plaintiff lived closer to federal court
in Camden, as claim arose in and defendant and witness were in
Atlantic City); Albright v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 95-4240,
1995 WL 664742, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 1995) (abstaining in
favor of action in Berks County Court of Common Pleas, as
operator of mower in issue and witnesses were in Berks County,
and thus federal court in Philadelphia less convenient).
THE PIECEMEAL FACTOR, Federal Factor, and Rights Factor
would be affected by the same fact:
under Section 1983.

the plaintiff seeks relief

The Piecemeal Factor would favor abstention.

There is a strong federal policy against piecemeal litigation
evinced here, as “[i]t is certainly true that state courts of
general jurisdiction can adjudicate cases invoking federal
statutes, such as § 1983”, Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 366
(2001), and thus litigating the same claim in the federal forum
and the state forums would be wasteful.

6

See Klements v. Cecil

Twp., No. 09-3213, 2010 WL 4850713, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2010)
(noting district court stayed Section 1983 claim due to parallel
state action).
THE FEDERAL FACTOR would weigh against abstention due to the
presence of the Section 1983 claim.

But the Rights Factor would

favor abstention, as New Jersey state courts can adjudicate such
a claim. Indeed, that the plaintiff brought the State Proceedings
“belies any claim that the state court cannot adequately protect
[the plaintiff’s] interests”.

BIL Mgmt. Corp. v. N.J. Econ. Dev.

Auth., 310 Fed.Appx. 490, 493 (3d Cir. 2008).

The Forum Factor

would depend upon the progress, if any, of the State Proceedings.
Id.
IF THIS COURT were to abstain, and if the plaintiff were to
elect to return to federal court upon the conclusion of the State
Proceedings, then the defendants would be protected from duplicate
litigation by the preclusion doctrines and the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.

See D.C. Ct. of Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482

(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).
THE PARTIES will note that this Court’s assessment of the
Amended Complaint herein is similar to this Court’s assessment of
the Second Amended Complaint in Venezia v. Manasquan Police
Department, No. 10-4634, in the Opinion and the Order and
Judgment therein dated May 31, 2011.

7

The Amended Complaint

herein and Second Amended Complaint in that action suffer from
similar deficiencies.
THE COURT will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:

May 31, 2011

8