Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 2236
`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`BOUAZZA OUAZIZ,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CITY OF JERSEY CITY, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`WIGENTON, District Judge.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 22-04546 (SDW)(ESK)
`
`
`
`WHEREAS OPINION
`
`
`
`December 2, 2022
`
`THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Bouazza Ouaziz’s
`
`(“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint (D.E. 4 (“Am. Compl.”)), filed on July 15, 2022, Defendant
`
`Hudson Hospital Opco, LLC d/b/a CarePoint Health-Christ Hospital i/p/a Christ Hospital’s
`
`(“Christ Hospital”) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and for Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) and 12(c) (D.E. 13), Defendant
`
`CityMD’s (“CityMD”) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and for Judgment on the
`
`Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c) (D.E. 20), and Defendants the Honorable Maureen
`
`Mantineo, J.S.C. (“Judge Mantineo”), the Honorable Andrea J. Sullivan, J.S.C. (“Judge Sullivan”),
`
`and Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Jane Weiner’s (“AP Weiner”) (collectively, the “State
`
`Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
`
`(D.E. 58); and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2237
`
`WHEREAS on July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a 108-page Amended Complaint1 with over
`
`600 paragraphs and sixty-seven causes of action. (See generally Am. Compl.) The body of the
`
`Amended Complaint is largely incoherent and confusing. (Id.) In it, Plaintiff appears to assert
`
`claims related to, inter alia, familial disputes, domestic violence incidents, immigration, fraud,
`
`assault/sexual assault, deprivation of constitutional rights, and medical services rendered to
`
`Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff names a myriad of Defendants, including, inter alia: his wife2 and her
`
`family; his wife’s boyfriend3; law firms; medical providers; Jersey City, New Jersey; Jersey City
`
`Police Department; police officers; New Jersey state court judges; and a New Jersey state court
`
`prosecutor. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 1–19.) Plaintiff’s allegations span the gamut from stolen passports
`
`(id. at ¶ 24), family court proceedings in New Jersey state court (id. at ¶¶ 26, 69–114), family feuds
`
`(id. at ¶¶ 23–68), drugging and sexual assault (id. at ¶¶ 23–68), domestic violence (id. at ¶¶ 23–
`
`68), corruption in the New Jersey state judicial system (id. at ¶¶ 69–114), conspiracy to commit
`
`fraud and falsify records (id. at ¶¶ 32–114), civil rights abuses (id.), and beyond; and
`
`WHEREAS the majority of Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise from domestic violence
`
`incidents and bodily injuries Plaintiff sustained from an alleged “drugging” and “sexual assault”
`
`that occurred in 2016 and 2019. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 23–32.) The Amended Complaint sets forth
`
`that: in “September 6, 2019, [P]laintiff found [D]efendant Noura El Ghazoini was drugging
`
`[P]laintiff to have sex and drug [] her boyfriend [D]efendant Michael Colombas” (id. at ¶ 24);
`
`“[P]laintiff went to CityMD emergency room for bleeding from [his] anus and [was] dizzy
`
`
`1 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on July 12, 2022. (D.E. 1.)
`
` 2
`
` The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff filed for an annulment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson
`County on September 18, 2019. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 26.) It is unclear whether Plaintiff is still legally married to Noura
`Elghazoni because the factual information provided in the Amended Complaint is incoherent and difficult to follow.
`
` 3
`
` The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Michael Colombas is Plaintiff’s wife’s boyfriend and a “medical
`worker” at Christ Hospital. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 23–25, 71.) The Amended Complaint provides no further factual
`information.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 2238
`
`and throwing up” (id. at ¶ 32); “[D]efendant Noura Elghazoini was drugging [P]laintiff since
`
`2016 and she us[ed] [D]efendant Michael Colombas as [a] medical worker to drug [P]laintiff to
`
`have sex” (id. at ¶ 71); “[D]efendant Noura El Ghazoini and her boyfriend [D]efendant Michael
`
`Colombas and [D]efendant Somia El Ghazoini and [D]efendant Ali Hilali and [D]efendant Robert
`
`Rodriguez as police officer in NYC were drugging [P]laintiff and his girlfriend in Brooklyn to
`
`cover up [their] crimes.”. (Id. at ¶ 88.) Plaintiff seeks relief in nearly countless forms, with
`
`damages for alleged harms including: “sexual assault under color of law,” “intentional infliction
`
`of emotional stress,” “negligent infliction of emotional stress,” “conspiracy,” “fraud and tampering
`
`with evidence,” “negligence,” “anal fissure and pain,” “loss of enjoyment of life,” “premeditated
`
`attempt to kill,” “robbery,” “extortion,” “endangering an injured person,” “aggravated sexual
`
`assault,” “battery,” “unfair business practices,” “obstructing justice,” “slander,” “42 U.S.C. §
`
`1983,” “42 U.S.C. § 1985,” “42 U.S.C. § 1986,” “42 U.S.C. § 1988,” and beyond. (Id. at ¶¶ 40–
`
`108); and
`
`WHEREAS on October 4, 2022, Christ Hospital filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
`
`Complaint and for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails
`
`to state a plausible claim for relief pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c). (See generally D.E. 13-
`
`7.) Specifically, Christ Hospital argues that: “(1) any and all actions of the alleged agent,
`
`Michael Colombas, would be outside the scope of employment and/or ultra vires acts and
`
`cannot support the imputation of liability to the alleged employer, Christ Hospital, (2) all
`
`bodily injury claims are barred by the two year statute of limitations, (3) the statutory claims
`
`are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and (4) Plaintiff fails to set forth a cause of
`
`action against Christ Hospital supported with allegations that it acted under color of state law.”
`
`(D.E. 13-7 at 2); and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 2239
`
`WHEREAS on October 11, 2022, CityMD filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
`
`Complaint and for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails
`
`to state a plausible claim for relief pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), 12(c), and Local Civil Rule 12.1.
`
`(D.E. 20-4.) CityMD contends, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s claims against CityMD relating to bodily
`
`injuries arising out of alleged misconduct by CityMD are barred by the applicable statute of
`
`limitations because the bodily injuries occurred in 2016 and 2019, which is more than two years
`
`prior to the filing of this action on July 12, 2022. (See generally D.E. 20-4); and
`
`WHEREAS on November 9, 2022, State Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
`
`Complaint, inter alia, on grounds that State Defendants are entitled to absolute judicial and
`
`prosecutorial immunity for any action (or inaction) allegedly undertaken (or not taken) within their
`
`respective judicial and prosecutorial roles. (Id. at 21–35); and
`
`WHEREAS this Court now sua sponte reviews the substance of Plaintiff’s Amended
`
`Complaint pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) and (3) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
`
`173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), and considers the arguments raised in Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss;
`
`and
`
`WHEREAS pro se complaints, although “[held] to less stringent standards than formal
`
`pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), must still “‘state
`
`a plausible claim for relief.’” Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 566 F. App’x 138, 141 (3d Cir.
`
`2014) (quoting Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)); and
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not comply with Rule 8. The Amended
`
`Complaint, which is 108 pages with over 600 paragraphs and sixty-seven causes of action, is dense
`
`and difficult to follow, and comes nowhere near the “short and plain statement” requirement of
`
`Rule 8. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding district court
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 2240
`
`did not abuse its discretion when dismissing complaint which was “unnecessarily complex and
`
`verbose,” featuring more than “600 paragraphs and 240 pages”); McDaniel v. N.J. State Parole
`
`Bd., Civ. No. 08-0978, 2008 WL 824283, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2008) (dismissing, without
`
`prejudice, a “rambling and sometimes illegible” 17-page, single-spaced complaint as not in
`
`compliance with Rule 8); Smith v. Dir.’s Choice, LLP, Civ. No. 15-81, 2016 WL 7165739, at *2-
`
`3 (D.N.J. July 28, 2016) (dismissing complaint for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 8 and
`
`collecting cases). Indeed, the Amended Complaint fails to provide a clear narrative of either the
`
`factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims. See Rule 8(a)(2) (providing that an adequate complaint
`
`must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
`
`relief”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating that although Rule 8 does not
`
`require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
`
`unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
`
`(explaining that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations
`
`must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”); and
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiff brings several claims against the State Defendants arising from
`
`various family court and criminal matters in New Jersey state court. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 26, 76–
`
`114.) Plaintiff alleges that “[J]udge conspired to withdraw my motion for [it] not to be
`
`recorded, and not to be part of my appeal” (id. at ¶ 77), “[J]udge Mantineo and other defendants
`
`. . . and police in [Jersey City] conspired to delay the case not to go to trial to prove this violation
`
`of plaintiff rights and his liberties” (id. at ¶ 88), AP Weiner “as a prosecutor conspired to dig my
`
`case” and “refuse[d] to prevent or to aid to prevent conspiracy” (id. at ¶ 93), and “[J]udge
`
`Mantineo and [J]udge Andrea Sullivan were involve[ed] in [an] exchange of favor[s] with
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 2241
`
`attorneys to sabotage justice and hurt [the] constitution[al] rights of citizen[s] [of] the United
`
`States” (id. at ¶ 99); and
`
`WHEREAS the State Defendants are entitled to absolute judicial and prosecutorial
`
`immunity for any action (or inaction) allegedly undertaken (or not taken) within their respective
`
`judicial and prosecutorial roles. Judge Mantineo and Judge Sullivan are absolutely immune to
`
`“‘civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their
`
`jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.’” Figueroa v.
`
`Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
`
`355–56 (1978)). Similarly, AP Weiner is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from
`
`liability for any and all actions taken in her role as a prosecutor. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.
`
`409, 427–28, 430 (1976) (explaining that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for conduct
`
`“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”) Moreover, under the
`
`Eleventh Amendment, “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by
`
`her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Villarreal v. New Jersey, 803 F. App’x
`
`583, 587 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662–63 (1974)). Eleventh
`
`Amendment immunity protects not only states but also state agencies and departments, such as the
`
`State Defendants here, “that are so intertwined with them as to render them arms of the state.”
`
`Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F.3d 504, 513 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Bowers v. NCAA, 475 F.3d 524,
`
`545 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s claims against
`
`the State Defendants are for acts carried out in the performance of judicial and prosecutorial
`
`duties, his claims fail; and
`
`WHEREAS a generous liberal reading of the Amended Complaint suggests that Plaintiff
`
`asserts a variety of causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 2242
`
`and beyond, for alleged injuries sustained from a “drugging” and “sexual assault” that occurred in
`
`2016 and 2019. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 23–32, 71.) The Amended Complaint sets forth that: (1)
`
`Defendant Noura Elghazoini had been drugging Plaintiff since 2016 and used Defendant Michael
`
`Colombas, a “medical worker,” to drug Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff learned of the alleged drugging on
`
`or about September 6, 2019; (3) Plaintiff sought treatment with CityMD on December 19, 2019,
`
`for the alleged drugging and sexual assault. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 23–32, 71, 88.) “It is well-
`
`established that a district court may dismiss a civil rights suit for failure to state a claim where the
`
`facts alleged in the complaint plainly demonstrate that a cause of action has not been brought
`
`within the applicable limitations period.” Hunterson v. Disabato, 244 F. App’x 455, 457 n.1 (3d
`
`Cir. 2007) (citing Bethel v. Jendoco Const. Corp., 570 F.2d 1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978)). The statute
`
`of limitations for actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in New Jersey is two years. See Backof
`
`v. N.J. State Police, 92 F. App’x 852, 855 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2). The
`
`statute of limitations for actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 is one year. See 42 U.S.C. § 1986
`
`(“[n]o action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within
`
`one year after the cause of action has accrued.”). Similarly, N.J.S.A. 2A:14–2 provides that an
`
`action for an injury to the person caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default must be commenced
`
`within two years of accrual of the action. “[A] cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations
`
`begins to run, when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which its action is
`
`based. The determination of the time at which a claim accrues is an objective inquiry; we ask not
`
`what the plaintiff actually knew but what a reasonable person should have known.” Kach v. Hose,
`
`589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s
`
`alleged claims stem from incidents that occurred in 2016 and 2019, which are more than two years
`
`prior to the filing of this action. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 23–32, 71.) The statute of limitations period
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04546-SDW-ESK Document 61 Filed 12/02/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 2243
`
`on those claims has expired under any liberal reading. Plaintiff provides no basis for a later accrual
`
`date or equitable tolling. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims arising from incidents
`
`that occurred in 2016 and 2019, his claims are time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`1986, N.J.S.A. 2A:14–2, and other applicable statutes.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED without
`
`prejudice, except as to (1) Plaintiff’s claims against the State Defendants for acts made in their
`
`judicial and prosecutorial capacities and (2) Plaintiff’s claims arising from incidents that occurred
`
`in 2016 and 2019 that are time-barred. Such claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff shall
`
`have thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint as to only those counts dismissed without
`
`prejudice. An appropriate order follows.
`
`
`/s/ Susan D. Wigenton
`
` SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
`
`
`
`Orig: Clerk
`cc:
`Edward S. Kiel, U.S.M.J.
`Parties
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`