The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
Plaintiff, Jamar Avi Cortina, alleges that defendants, Gary Bader and Jason Snyder, both police officers, conspired against him, ultimately assaulting him and then falsifying criminal charges against him. Based on those allegations, plaintiff filed suit in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming constitutional violations of due process and his right against excessive bail. Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff's suit.
For the reasons expressed below, that motion will be granted.
Plaintiff has brought his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
On the night of February 16, 2007, defendants encountered plaintiff during a traffic stop.*fn1 Once outside of his vehicle, plaintiff was physically assaulted by defendants, who punched him in his face and on his body. As a result of one of Officer Snyder's blows to his face, plaintiff suffered a broken nose.
Thereafter, plaintiff was arrested and transported to the police station. Officer Bader falsified criminal charges against plaintiff, alleging that plaintiff attempted to disarm him by prying his gun out of his holster. Further, Officer Snyder accused plaintiff of physically attacking him. By plaintiff's assessment, defendants had conspired to assault him, fabricate criminal charges against him, and deny him a reasonable bail.
On April 27, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court and remitted the filing fee in the amount of $350.00. In addition to his Section 1983 claim, plaintiff avers that, in the aftermath of defendants' alleged misconduct, he filed a "tort claim within the 90 day period after the incident," as well as criminal complaints with "the Cherry Hill Police Internal Affairs," "the Camden County Prosecutor," and "the Attorney General Anne Milgram," and, on May 16, 2008, a civil action in this Court.*fn2
Consequently, defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations has expired on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim. Presently before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A. Standard for Motion to Dismiss
When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005). It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it contains "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
A district court, in weighing a motion to dismiss, asks "'not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 n.8 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1953 (2009) ("Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ." (citation omitted)). Under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, the Third Circuit has instructed a two-part analysis. First, a claim's factual and legal elements should be separated; a "district court must accept all of the ...