This matter arose due to a dispute in 2021 between plaintiff Kelsey Kelly and her ex-husband, defendant Karl Kelly, which led to plaintiff’s arrest and criminal charges being filed against her. While preparing for a trip to Texas, plaintiff entered her motor vehicle and removed two handguns from the trunk. At that time, her ex-husband was a police officer and, at the request of her ex-husband, members of the police department arrived at the scene and arrested plaintiff for burglary and theft. The issue in Kelly v. Ewing Township, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136736 (D.N.J. July 17, 2025) was whether plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, particularly because it alleged facts regarding the conduct of at least 6 of the 9 defendants as a “group” pleading and failed to distinguish the actions of each defendant.
In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that the police department arrested her in order to “aid” her husband who was with the police force at the time and that the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office pursued her arrest knowing that there was no merit to it. She filed a lawsuit against the Mayor and Council, Ewing Township, the Ewing Police Department, the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office and later added the officers and an assistant prosecutor to the lawsuit. Thereafter, the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office, Assistant Prosecutor, and defendant Kelly moved to dismiss and/or file the motion for summary judgment.
The District Court found that the complaint “impermissibly” grouped all defendants together without sufficient factual allegations as to each defendant to satisfy the rule requirement that the complaint contain a “short and plain statement” and provide notice of the claims. The District Court noted that courts in this district “routinely dismiss complaints when the complaints contain improper group pleading.” If the complaint contained mere conclusory allegations against the defendant as a group, prior courts have found that such a complaint would fail to allege the personal involvement of any defendant sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. A plaintiff must allege facts as to each individual defendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.
Here, the complaint alleged only that unidentified members of the Ewing Police Department arrested plaintiff for burglary and theft at the request of her ex-husband and, on other undated occasions, unidentified members of the Ewing Police Department responded to an instance of domestic violence and arrested her for simple assault. Further, she alleged that this action was similarly taken to protect her ex-husband because he was a member of the police force at the time.
The Court found that the complaint failed to allege any facts regarding the conduct of at least 6 of the 9 named defendants, including the Mayor and Council, Ewing Township, three officers, and the Assistant Prosecutor. In each of the alleged counts, the District Court found that the complaint impermissibly grouped all defendants together and alleged without distinction that the actions of the defendants were malicious and resulted in the false arrest of a plaintiff and that the actions resulted in the malicious prosecution of the plaintiff and, therefore, they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court held that this type of group pleading in which all the defendants were lumped together did not provide the defendants notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which those claims rested. These types of pleadings do not “set forth facts sufficient to give the individual defendants notice as to the misconduct with which each is charged or to provide this Court with a basis upon which to determine the viability of the claims against each of them.” Thus, the District Court found that in failing to differentiate which defendant was involved in the unlawful conduct, the allegations of the complaint as pled were insufficient to state a claim.
Additionally, the District Court found that the complaint contained other defects. The Court found that the complaint’s minimal factual allegations were insufficient to state a federal claim under § 1983. Further, as to various individuals like the Assistant Prosecutor, the complaint allegations were extremely brief and did not allege the personal involvement of each defendant or articulate any municipal policy or custom that caused the conduct at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court found that the plaintiff could not sustain a § 1983 claim against the identified individual defendants or municipalities. Further, the Court noted that the complaint’s impermissible group pleading, as previously discussed, was particularly fatal to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.
Because the pleading defects applied to both the moving defendants and the other non-moving defendants equally, the District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to all defendants. However, the Court did permit the plaintiff to file a Third-Amended Complaint within 30 days of the order. The Court stated that the plaintiff must allege specific actions by each defendant, which resulted in her alleged harm, and may not refer to them collectively as “defendants.”
