VENEZIA v. UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE et al

Filing 80

OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 3/23/2012. (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 brings this action containing claims that are
apparently pursuant to federal law and state law.
no. 4, Am. Compl.)

(Dkt. entry

By an Opinion, and an Order and Judgment,

both dated May 31, 2011 (“May Opinion” and “May Order”), the
Court (1) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as drafted in their
entirety because they (a) did not comply with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d), and 10(b), and (b) contained certain
allegations that were barred by the immunity doctrine, and (2)
granted the plaintiff leave to move to file amended pleadings
curing the deficiencies.

(Dkt. entry no. 64, 5-31-11 Order & J.;

see dkt. entry no. 63, 5-31-11 Op.)

The plaintiff is assumed to

be familiar with the contents of the May 2011 Opinion and the May
2011 Order; the Court will not repeat their contents here.
THE PLAINTIFF, in response to the May 2011 Opinion and the
May 2011 Order, argues that (1) the Court “ignored an important
central unifying element” in this action when the Court addressed
the impropriety of annexing 200 pages of exhibits to her

pleadings, as she should be permitted to show that she “wrote
letter after letter” to various parties (dkt. entry no. 65, Pl.
Br. at 1), (2) “any reasonable person would have ‘discerned’ as
facts and plausible allegations, both the Plaintiff’s physical
injury and violation of rights” (id. at 2), (3) the Court’s
assessment of her pleadings was “superficial” (id. at 2), (4) the
Court has “placed all of its attention on form and not on
substance” in reviewing her pleadings (id. at 5), and (5) there
is no need for her to file amended pleadings, and thus the May
2011 Opinion and the May 2011 Order should be vacated.
Consequently, the plaintiff has not submitted any proposed
amended pleadings for the Court to review.
THE COURT provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to cure
the deficiencies in her pleadings.
this opportunity.

The plaintiff has rejected

Thus, this action will remain closed.

But the

Court will grant the plaintiff leave to pursue any state law
claims in state court, in the interests of justice.
§ 1367.

See 28 U.S.C.

The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.1

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

March 23, 2012

1

The Court expressed concerns in the May 2011 Opinion
about potential parallel state court proceedings. (See 5-31-11
Op. at 4-7.) Those concerns are now moot.
2