KENNETH ROSELLINI (6047) ATTORNEY AT LAWmedia.nj.com/warrenreporter_impact/other/Zimmer... · domiciled in the State of Jersey, and has resided in Warren County, New Jersey at times

KENNETH ROSELLINI (6047) ATTORNEY AT LAW 636A Van Houten Avenue Clifton, New Jersey 07013 (973) 998-8375 Fax (973) 998-8376 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHRISTOPHER ZIMMER , SR. AND NICOLE ZIMMER,

Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY (“DCP&P”) (formerly Division of Youth & Family Services), LISA VON PIER, in herofficial capacity as Director ofDCP&P/Assistant Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), ALLISON BLAKE, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of DCF, MONIQUE DYKES, in her individual capacity, and MICHELLE MARCHESE, in her individual capacity,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION Case No. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VERIFIED COMPLAINT and JURY

DEMAND

Plaintiffs Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer, in the above-captioned matter, by

and through their counsel of record, for their causes of action against Defendants, state as

follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Christopher Zimmer, Sr. (referred to at times as “Mr. Zimmer”) is currently

domiciled in the State of Jersey, and has resided in Warren County, New Jersey at times

relevant to this Complaint, and is the father of Christopher Zimmer, Jr.

2. Plaintiff, Nicole Zimmer (referred to at times as “Mrs. Zimmer”) is currently domiciled

in the State of Jersey, and has resided in Warren County, New Jersey at times relevant to

Case 3:33-av-00001 Document 9762 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 28 PageID: 282924

this Complaint, and is the mother of Christopher, Jr. (together Mr. Zimmer, Mrs. Zimmer

and Christopher Zimmer, Jr. are sometimes referred to as the “Zimmers” or the “Zimmer

family”).

3. The Defendant, The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (“DCP&P”) (formerly

the Division of Youth and Family Services, hereinafter referred to at times throughout

this complaint as “DYFS”), is New Jersey's child protection and child welfare agency

within the Department of Children and Families.

4. The Defendant, Lisa Von Pier (“Pier”) is the current Director of DCP&P and is liable for

her actions in her official capacity done under color of state law. This Defendant is

entrusted to protect the Constitutional rights of those she encounters and at all times

relevant hereto was acting within the scope of her duties and authority, under color or

title of state law supervised or controlled one or more of the Defendants herein, or acted

in concert with one or more of the other individual Defendants in the performance or

conduct of their actions.

5. The Defendant, Allison Blake (“Blake”) is the current Commissioner of the Department

of Children and Families and is liable for her actions in her official capacity done under

color of state law. This Defendant is entrusted to protect the Constitutional rights of

those she encounters and at all times relevant hereto was acting within the scope of her

duties and authority, under color or title of state law supervised or controlled one or more

of the Defendants herein, or acted in concert with one or more of the other individual

Defendants in the performance or conduct of their actions.

6. Defendant, Monique Dykes (“Dykes”), is currently employed as a supervisor of child

protective services workers and during relevant times to this Complaint and is liable for


her acts and omissions in her individual capacity done under color of state law. This

Defendant is entrusted to protect the Constitutional rights of those she encounters and at

all times relevant hereto was acting within the scope of her duties and authority, under

color or title of state law supervised or controlled one or more of the Defendants herein,

or acted in concert with one or more of the other individual Defendants in the

performance or conduct of their actions.

7. Defendant, Michelle T. Marchese (“Marchese”), is upon information and belief currently

employed as a child protective services worker by DCP&P and during relevant times to

this Complaint and is liable for her acts and omissions in her individual capacity done

under color of state law. This Defendant is entrusted to protect the Constitutional rights

of those she encounters and at all times relevant hereto was acting within the scope of her

duties and authority, under color or title of state law and acted in concert with one or

more of the other individual Defendants in the performance or conduct of their actions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343

and 1367 which confer original jurisdiction upon the Court on the grounds that the instant

action arises under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988.

9. Venue in the New Jersey District is properly laid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, in so far

as the following alleged unlawful conduct complained of in this Complaint, which forms

the factual and legal basis of the claims of the Plaintiffs, arose within the geographical

limits of this District.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. Plaintiffs Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer are the loving parents of

Christopher Zimmer, Jr., who is fifteen years old.

11. The Zimmers are domiciled in Warren County, New Jersey and reside in a one-family

home.

12. Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer have exercised their Fundamental

Constitutional Rights as parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and

control of their child, Christopher Zimmer, Jr.

13. The Zimmers have exercised their Fundamental Constitutional Rights of Freedom of

Association, including the rights to maintain or exclude human relationships as a choice

of intimate or expressive association, including the choice of homeschooling Christopher

Zimmer, Jr. in a manner academically equivalent to that provided in the local public

school.

14. The Zimmers have exercised their Fundamental Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and

have maintained lawful possession of firearms.

15. The Zimmers have the Fundamental Constitutional Right to be free from unlawful

investigations performed under color of state law that threaten removal of children from

parents by state agencies, where there is no reasonable and articulable evidence giving

rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of

abuse.

16. The Zimmers have the Fundamental Constitutional Right to be free from unlawful

investigations performed under color of state law whose purpose is to fabricate evidence

for the purpose of depriving persons of Constitutional Rights.


17. On January 13, 2015, the Zimmers were together peacefully at their home.

18. On January 13, 2015, there was no reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a

reasonable suspicion that Christopher Zimmer, Jr. had been abused or was in imminent

danger of abuse by the Plaintiffs or anyone else.

19. On January 13, 2015, unannounced, the Defendant Michelle T. Marchese appeared at the

front door of the home of the Zimmers.

20. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Monique Dykes directly supervised the

conduct of Marchese with respect to the investigation by DCP&P of the Zimmer family.

21. When Marchese appeared at the front door of the home of the Zimmers, Christopher

Zimmer, Sr. asked Marchese why she was at the Zimmers’ home.

22. Marchese stated that she was a DCP&P caseworker and that she categorically had to

come into the Zimmer family home “Now!”

23. When pressed again by Christopher Zimmer, Sr. as to why Marchese, as a DCP&P

caseworker, had authority to come into the Zimmers’ home, Mr. Zimmer was told by

Marchese that she was there to investigate the Plaintiffs’ homeschooling of their child

Christopher Zimmer, Jr.

24. Marchese further stated that the DCP&P had allegedly received a call from someone,

whose name she did not provide, that Christopher Zimmer, Jr. was not getting the “proper

homeschooling”, and she was at the Zimmer home under the authority of DCP&P to

make sure the Plaintiffs were homeschooling Christopher Zimmer, Jr. “correctly”.

25. Marchese and the DCP&P never stated to the Zimmers the nature of the homeschooling

of Christopher Zimmer, Jr. that they were allegedly not performing “correctly”.

26. Christopher Zimmer, Sr. told Marchese that she could not come into the Zimmer family


home, and she did not have his consent to enter the home.

27. Marchese interrupted Christopher Zimmer, Sr.’s statement that she was not allowed into

his home by emphatically asserting that he had to let her in “right now” and he “could not

refuse” her entry.

28. Christopher Zimmer, Sr. then proceeded to call the local police and told Marchese to

have a seat in her DCP&P van while he called them.

29. The local police arrived and failed to remove Marchese from the Zimmers home, instead

allowing her to continue to threaten and investigate the Zimmers without a warrant or

probable cause.

30. The Zimmers, under duress and the coercive threats of Marchese acting under color of

state law, then proceeded to allow Marchese into their home against their will,

involuntarily.

31. During the entire ordeal, Marchese never advised the Zimmers of their Constitutional

Rights.

32. Now in the Zimmers home, Marchese informed the Zimmers that the DCP&P categorizes

its investigations into two “tiers”.

33. The “first tier” consisted of allegations of “higher”, more immediate threat cases dealing

with abuse and neglect of children.

34. The “second tier” consisted of “less severe” cases, which apparently did not deal with

abuse and neglect of children.

35. Marchese advised the Zimmers that she had appeared at the Zimmers’ home under this

“second tier” of cases which are “less severe” and apparently did not deal with abuse and

neglect of children.


36. Marchese then sat down at a table at the Zimmers’ home with all three of the Zimmers

present.

37. Marchese against stated her name, that she was acting on authority of DCP&P, and then

reiterated that she was at the home investigating a call about Christopher Zimmer, Jr.’s

homeschooling and she was there to make sure that he was receiving the “proper

education”.

38. Marchese then began interrogating Nicole Zimmer about her homeschooling of

Christopher Zimmer, Jr. and about whether she had any written records concerning tests,

grades, attendance and form of curriculum.

39. Nicole Zimmer explained to Marchese some of her successful teaching methods for

Christopher Zimmer, Jr.

40. Nicole Zimmer explained to Marchese that she was not required to maintain written

records under New Jersey Law.

41. Marchese then asserted that such records were required by New Jersey Law, while failing

to cite any legal authority for her assertion.

42. In fact, the State of New Jersey clearly recognizes the rights of parents to homeschool

their children where they “receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school (see

N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A:38-25), and there is no legal authority for Marchese’s assertion that

written homeschooling education records be maintained by law.

43. In fact, during Marchese’s lengthy interrogation, she never once stated what allegation

the purported anonymous caller made to give DCP&P probable cause to believe that

Christopher Zimmer, Jr. was not receiving a proper education by homeschooling.

44. Marchese then instructed the Zimmers that Christopher Zimmer, Jr.’s homeschooling had


to include what the public school system would have taught him, and that they had to

both work with the public school and follow the public school curriculum.

45. In fact, there is no legal requirement that the Zimmers work with the local public school

and follow the local public school curriculum.

46. When the Plaintiffs explained to Marchese that, due Mr. Zimmer’s work schedule in

which he has certain weekdays off, Saturday and Sunday are often considered

work/school days in the Zimmers’ household, Marchese proceeded to interrogate

Christopher Zimmer, Jr. about what he had done on Sunday.

47. Concerned about the fact that Christopher Zimmer, Jr.’s maternal grandmother had

passed away on a Sunday ten days prior, and that Christopher Zimmer, Jr. may feel the

need to discuss her passing in response to the question—Mr. Zimmer instructed his son

not to answer the question.

48. Marchese immediately became loud and emphatically questioned why Mr. Zimmer was

“being so defensive”.

49. When Mr. Zimmer told Marchese that she had no legal right to involuntarily question

them in their home about their homeschooling of Christopher Zimmer, Jr., Marchese

asserted that she had such legal right, without citing any legal authority.

50. Marchese now abandoned all pretense of purported concern for homeschooling and

began asking Christopher Zimmer, Jr. completely unrelated questions.

51. For example, Marchese asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. what he wanted to be when he

grew-up.

52. Christopher Zimmer, Jr. responded that he wanted to be a Marine scout sniper, Marchese

asked him why and, before he had a chance to answer, whether he liked to play the video


game “Call of Duty”.

53. Mr. Zimmer again asserted that Christopher Zimmer, Jr. did not have to answer that

question.

54. Mr. Zimmer was concerned, inter alia, about the fact Marchese was attempting to link his

son’s answer about the fact he wanted to be a Marine scout sniper to a video game.

55. In fact, Christopher Zimmer, Jr.’s grandfather was in the army, and his uncles were in the

navy.

56. In fact, Christopher Zimmer, Jr. has relatives on both sides of his family that are or were

in the military, and he is aware that real life military experience is nothing like video

games.

57. In fact, Christopher Zimmer, Jr. had asked his parents to take him to a Marine recruiting

office in Rockaway, New Jersey approximately two years prior to talk about what he had

to do if he wanted to become a Marine.

58. Christopher Zimmer, Jr. was explained to by the United States Marine Corps recruiter

about the ASVAB test (which is a multiple-aptitude battery that measures developed

abilities and helps predict future academic and occupational success in the military which

is administered annually to more than one million military applicants, high school, and

post-secondary students).

59. Christopher Zimmer, Jr. was also advised by the Marine recruiter of the physical and

other requirements to become a Marine.

60. The Plaintiffs have bought their son an ASVAB book, at their son’s request, so he can

study it.

61. The Plaintiffs have bought their son a home exercise machine, also at his request, that in


his room.

62. Concerned that Marchese and DCP&P were trying to make improper associations,

fabricate evidence and delve into associations which are protected under the First

Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, Mr. Zimmer asserted

that this questioning by Marchese should stop.

63. Again, Marchese immediately became loud and emphatically questioned why Mr.

Zimmer was “being so defensive”.

64. Marchese then questioned Christopher Zimmer, Jr. as to whether or not he had ever told

anyone that he doesn’t do schoolwork.

65. Christopher Zimmer, Jr. responded that he had never made such a statement.

66. Mr. Zimmer again asserted to Marchese that the questioning should stop

67. Again, Marchese immediately became loud and emphatically questioned why Mr.

Zimmer was “being so defensive”, this time asserting that Mr. Zimmer was also being

“angry”.

68. Again, Mr. Zimmer asserted and explained to Marchese that she had no right to compel

the Zimmers to let her into their home and interrogate them in this manner.

69. Marchese then asserted that she had the right to be in the home to interrogate the

Zimmers, and asked when was the last time that they had read up on the homeschooling

laws because, she asserted, the laws had changed.

70. When Mr. Zimmer demanded that Marchese produce the legal authority for her

questioning and provide what homeschooling laws had purportedly “changed”, Marchese

refused and/or failed to provide any legal authority, stating that she didn’t have the

information “with her”, but she could get it for them.


71. At one point, Marchese asked if Christopher Zimmer, Jr. was up to date with his

vaccines, to which Mrs. Zimmer answered yes.

72. When Mrs. Zimmer expressed that she did have concerns about the risks of the use of

vaccines and was aware of New Jersey law the provided for religious exemptions from

vaccination, Marchese stated snidely that Christopher Zimmer, Jr. “looked o.k.” to her.

73. Marchese now demanded that Plaintiffs sign HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act) Medical Release Forms so that DCP&P would have full access to all

of Christopher Zimmer, Jr.’s medical records.

74. Marchese then demanded that the Zimmers provide the last four digits of their Social

Security Numbers so that DCP&P could perform a background investigation on the

Zimmers.

75. The Zimmers signed the HIPPA forms and provided the Social Security number

information, believing that their ordeal with the DYFS interrogation would be over.

76. Instead, Marchese persisted and continued her interrogation of Christopher Zimmer, Jr.

77. Marchese then asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. whether the Plaintiffs argue, and he

answered “occasionally”.

78. Marchese then asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. whether when the Plaintiffs argue, did he

get scared, and he answered no.

79. Marchese then asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. whether the Plaintiffs threw things at each

other, and he answered no.

80. Marchese then asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. whether the Plaintiffs drank alcohol, and

he answered no.

81. Marchese then asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. whether he had ever seen illegal drugs in


the house, and he answered no.

82. Marchese then asked Christopher Zimmer, Jr. whether there were weapons in the house.

83. Plaintiffs’ son looked to Mr. Zimmer, who proceeded to answer the question.

84. Mr. Zimmer told Marchese that the Zimmers have lawfully possessed firearms at their

home and a small collection of pocket knives that his son collects.

85. Marchese then asked Zimmer if there was anything like “big swords” in the home, and

Mr. Zimmer answered no.

86. Mr. Zimmer proceeded to inform Marchese that the firearms were in fact lawfully in their

possession and secure in a gun safe.

87. Marchese then asked who had the keys to the safe, and Mr. Zimmer answered that only

he had the keys.

88. Marchese now demanded to see the firearms and where Christopher Zimmer, Jr. sleeps.

89. Mr. Zimmer then took Marchese to the room where the firearms are stored in the safe.

90. Mr. Zimmer further explained to Marchese that Christopher Zimmer, Jr. is legally

licensed by the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife to hunt with a firearm.

91. Once at the safe, Marchese attempted to open the safe herself, and it did not open.

92. Marchese then instructed Mr. Zimmer to open the gun safe, and show her the guns.

93. When Mr. Zimmer opened the gun safe, Marchese instructed him to pull out a gun and

show it to her so she could see it better, which he did.

94. Marchese then asked Mr. Zimmer if the ammunition was kept separate from the firearms,

and he pointed to an empty ammo can next to the gun safe, she said o.k.

95. Marchese then attempted to quote from New Jersey statutory law regarding keeping guns

and ammunition separate.


96. Marchese now asked Mr. Zimmer if his son was or had ever appeared to be suicidal,

which Mr. Zimmer answered no.

97. Marchese now proceeded to go into Christopher Zimmer, Jr.’s room and observe

everything in plain view, followed by her opening a door that goes to a bathroom.

98. As Marchese was getting to ready to leave the Zimmers’ home, she was talking about

getting back to the Zimmers with the homeschooling laws and that maybe she could help

them “tweak” their routine.

99. Subsequent to the involuntary interrogation at their home by Marchese of the DCP&P,

the Zimmers proceeded to revoke the HIPPA Releases.

100. Subsequent to the involuntary interrogation at their home by Marchese of the

DCP&P, the Zimmers proceed to retain an attorney to protect their Constitutional Rights.

101. By letter of their Counsel to Marchese faxed to the Warren County DCP&P office

on January 30, 2015, to the attention of Marchese, the Plaintiffs demanded that DCP&P

immediately cease and desist any direct communications with the Zimmer family and any

of their health care providers.


on January 30, 2015, the DCP&P was placed on Notice that it must immediately Cease

and Desist any further violations of the Zimmer family’s rights under, inter alia, the First,

Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the

United States of America.


on January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs demanded that DCP&P immediately produce any and all

allegations, notes and/or records which it may have with respect to any investigation of


the Zimmer family conducted by the DCP&P, and that it immediately destroy any

medical information regarding the Zimmer family which may have been obtained by way

of medical releases which were procured from the Zimmer family under unlawful duress

by the DCP&P.


on January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs demanded that DCP&P immediately produce the

purported legal authority under which DCP&P conducted its search and interrogation of

the Zimmers.

105. The Zimmers did not receive any communication from the Defendants after

January 13, 2015, until they received a letter in the mail dated March 9, 2015 from

DCP&P, signed by Marchese as “Family Service Specialist” and Monique Dykes as

“Supervising Family Service Specialist”, which states:

RE: Christopher Zimmer

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Zimmer, We were unable to complete our assessment as it pertains to a referral made to our agency on 1/07/15, as you were unwilling to cooperate with the CWS referral process. Therefore, DCP&P will not be providing services to your child and your family at this time. If you need any additional services, please contact the State Central Registry 24-hour service number at 1-877-652-2873. Thank you for your cooperation during our recent contacts.

106. The DCP&P and Marchese have failed and/or refused to respond to the demands

in the January 30, 2015 letter from the Zimmers’ legal counsel that they produce any and

all allegations, notes and/or records which it may have with respect to any investigation


of the Zimmer family conducted by the DCP&P, and that it immediately destroy any

medical information regarding the Zimmer family which may have been obtained by way

of medical releases which were procured from the Zimmer family under unlawful duress

by the DCP&P.

107. The DCP&P and Marchese have failed and/or refused to respond to the demands

in the January 30, 2015 letter from the Zimmers’ legal counsel that they produce the

purported legal authority under which DCP&P conducted its search and interrogation of

the Zimmers.

108. In fact, DCP&P’s letter dated March 9, 2015 is an unlawful attempt to

mischaracterize DCP&P’s Un-Constitutional investigation of the Zimmers in violation of

their Fundamental Constitutional Right to be free from unlawful investigations performed

under color of state law that threaten removal of children from parents by state agencies,

where there is no reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable

suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse.

109. In fact, DCP&P’s letter dated March 9, 2015 is an unlawful attempt to

characterize DCP&P’s Un-Constitutional investigation and Un-Constitutional search of

the Zimmers’ home under threat of removal of the child for allegedly “improper

homeschooling” as an attempt by DCP&P to offer to the Zimmers purportedly beneficial

“services” it could provide the Zimmers.

110. In fact, DCP&P never even offered any specific “services” that it could provide

the Zimmers.

111. In fact, DCP&P employed Un-Constitutional government coercion in an attempt

to impose its “services” upon the Zimmers in violation of the First and Fourteenth


Amendments.

112. In fact, Marchese and the DCP&P never stated to the Zimmers what type of

homeschooling of Christopher Zimmer, Jr. they were allegedly not performing

“correctly”.

113. In fact, the DCP&P’s characterizing the investigation of the Zimmer family as a

“second tier” investigation that did not involve abuse or neglect, demonstrates that the

Defendants knew there was no probable cause of abuse or neglect and that it had no

authority to justify its intrusive and coercive investigation of the Plaintiffs.

114. In fact, DCP&P’s investigation into the Zimmer family was an attempt to

fabricate evidence for the purposes of violating the Plaintiffs’ rights under the First,

Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United

States of America.

115. In fact, the Defendants acted without lawful jurisdiction and under the Un-

Constitutional assertion of Parens Patriae authority.

116. In fact, based on the Defendants’ conduct as set forth supra, Plaintiffs are in

reasonable and substantial fear that the Defendants will again act against them without

lawful jurisdiction unless an injunction issues from this Court enjoining the Defendants

from future Un-Constitutional conduct.

117. In fact, based on the Defendants’ conduct as set forth supra, the Plaintiffs have

been injured by the Defendants’ Un-Constitutional conduct and there is a real and

immediate danger that DCP&P will continue and repeat its Un-Constitutional conduct

and cause further and more permanent injury to the Zimmers.


FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C.A. §1983 - VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY DEFENDANTS, THE DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, LISA VON PIER AND ALLISON BLAKE

118. Plaintiffs Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer incorporate by reference

the allegations contained in the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth here.

119. The Defendants, The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly the

Division of Youth and Family Services, “DYFS”), Lisa Von Pier and Allison Blake are

charged with the responsibility and duty to protect and serve the public by properly

hiring, supervising, training, disciplining and controlling child protective service workers

under their command.

120. This responsibility includes promulgation and enforcement of rules and

regulations regarding avoidance of threats and abuse of process in the investigation of

allegations of child abuse.

121. On information and belief, Defendants DCP&P, Lisa Von Pier and Allison Blake,

failed to promulgate adequate rules and regulations regarding avoidance of threats and

abuse of process in the investigation of allegations of child abuse and further failed to

instruct, discipline and train in the appropriate methods for handling and investigating

allegations of child abuse without resorting to threats and abuse of process.

122. On information and belief, Defendants DCP&P, Lisa Von Pier and Allison Blake,

established through tacit authorization or explicit instruction a policy or custom of

allowing DCP&P workers to commit abuse of process. That policy was enacted and

enforced with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.


123. Plaintiffs have been harmed by such policy.

124. Such policy is violative of Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fifth

Amendment, which states in pertinent part that no person shall “be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .” and the Fourteenth Amendment,

which states in pertinent part that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law . . .”, to the Constitution of the United States of

America.

125. This development, implementation, and carrying out of a policy, practice,

procedure, or custom amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and a deprivation of life

and liberty under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer, respectfully

demand judgment against the Defendants, The Division of Child Protection and Permanency,

Lisa Von Pier and Allison Blake, jointly and severally:

A) For Injunctive Relief in the form of an order requiring that the explicit instruction

and policy be made requiring DCP&P workers to refrain from abuse of process.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 - CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS

126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs above,

as though fully set forth here.

127. Defendants reached a meeting of the minds amongst themselves that incidents of

abuse of process would be tolerated notwithstanding the constitutional implications of

such abuse and the likelihood such conduct would be repeated.


128. On information and belief, this meeting of the minds can be proven through

Defendants incidents of abuse of process and from the repeating of that conduct in an

effort to deny Plaintiffs rights of due process.

129. These conspiracies constituted and continue to constitute ongoing violations of 42

U.S.C. Section 1985.



Lisa Von Pier, Michelle Marchese and Monique Dykes, jointly and severally, molded by the

Court to maximize the financial recovery available to Plaintiffs in light of the caps on certain

damages set forth in applicable federal and state law and for:

A) Damages in the amount of $10,000,000.00; and

B) Punitive Damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00; and

C) Awarding counsel fees to Plaintiff’s legal counsel; and

D) Awarding Costs of Suit; and

E) Interest; and

F) Damages for Pain and Suffering; and

G) For such other relief as the Court may determine to be appropriate.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C.A. §1983 - VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS BY DEFENDANTS

130. Plaintiffs, Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer incorporate by reference

the allegations contained in paragraphs above as though fully set forth here.

131. The acts and/or omission of Defendants in this case were performed under color


of law and deprived Plaintiffs of their First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights under the United States Constitution to due process, compulsory

process, equal protection, and freedom from interference with their fundamental rights as

parents without due process of law.

132. By virtue of this policy and conduct, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, have been violated.

133. Defendants’ acts and omissions furthermore interfered with Plaintiffs’

fundamental rights to privacy and freedom from excessive interference with raising a

family.

134. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions were a moving force behind an objectively

unreasonable abuse of process against Plaintiffs resulting in the above-referenced

Constitutional violations.

135. The acts and/or omission of defendants in this case were performed under color of

law and deprived Plaintiffs of their First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights under the United States Constitution to due process and equal

protection.

136. This development, implementation, and carrying out of a policy, practice,

procedure, or custom amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and a deprivation of life

and liberty under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.











E) Interest; and



FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C.A. §1983

VIOLATION OF FIRST, SECOND, FOURTH, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BY DEFENDANTS

137. Plaintiffs, Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer incorporate by reference

the allegations contained in paragraphs above, as though fully set forth here.

138. Any and all acts and omissions of Defendants, alleged in this complaint,

constitute actions or omissions under the color and pretense of the laws, statutes,

ordinances, regulations, customs, and usage of DCP&P.

139. Defendants owed a duty to protect and serve the public, including Plaintiffs and

those similarly situated.

140. Under the circumstances as they existed in this case these Defendants had a duty

to not commit abuses of process.

141. Defendants were acting under color of state law, instituted and followed policies,


procedures in a manner that directly resulted in the objectively unreasonable abuse of

process against Plaintiffs resulting in injury.

142. Defendants in acting under color of state law, acted with deliberate and

unreasonable conduct in violation of clearly established law of which a reasonable child

protective services worker should have known.

143. In these above-stated actions, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be deprived of rights,

privileges, and immunities, as those rights are secured under the First (“Congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”),

Second (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”), Fourth (“The right of

the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause . . . .”); Fifth (no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law . . .” ), and Fourteenth Amendment (“deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .” and “no state shall ... deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

144. In these above-stated actions, Defendants caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of their

rights, privileges, and immunities to be free from excessive interference with family

relationships and to due process, as those rights are secured under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.


145. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions described in this

complaint, Defendants are liable in damages to Plaintiffs for deprivation of their rights

under 42 U.S.C.A. §1983.










E) Interest; and



FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C.A. §1983 - RETALIATION FOR PROTECTED ACTIVITY

146. Plaintiffs Christopher Zimmer, Sr. and Nicole Zimmer incorporate by reference

the allegations contained in above paragraphs, above, as though fully set forth here.

147. Plaintiffs have maintained their familial relationships and educated their child

consistent with their Constitutional Rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

148. Plaintiffs have held legal possession of firearms under the Second Amendment.

149. Defendants’ Un-Constitutional conduct was done solely to deprive the Plaintiffs


of their rights under the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

150. The above-described acts done by Defendants were in excess of any authority

granted them by law, and were without justification or excuse in law.

151. Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and purposely, with the specific intent of

depriving Plaintiffs of their rights.

152. The acts of Defendants did in fact deny Plaintiffs their rights as those rights are

secured to Plaintiffs in the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and in 42 U.S.C.A. §1983.

153. As a result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs have been damaged and have

incurred great emotional distress, mental anguish, undue hardship, humiliation,

inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life.

154. As a further direct and proximate result of the above-described unlawful conduct

of Defendants, Plaintiffs will be required to expend money for legal costs and to secure

recovery for damages incurred, in an amount not yet ascertained.











E) Interest; and



SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (New Jersey Civil Rights Act)

155. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in

full.

156. Defendants have proximately caused the Plaintiffs to suffer the deprivation of

substantive due process, equal protection rights, privileges and/or immunities secured by

the Constitution and/or laws of the United States, and substantive rights, privileges or

immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws of

the State of New Jersey, by their interference with the rights of the Plaintiffs.

157. By virtue of the foregoing acts, defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights under

Section 10:6-2 of the New Jersey Statutes (the New Jersey Civil Rights Act), as a result

which Plaintiffs has been damaged.











E) Interest; and



DAMAGE CLAIMS AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

PUNITIVE DAMAGES



159. In addition to compensatory damages, Plaintiffs hereby make a claim for punitive

damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial for the willful and wanton

acts and omissions of Defendants, to include violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights, as

alleged in this complaint.

160. The acts and omissions of Defendants in this case were so gross and culpable in

nature that they constitute reckless indifference and wanton disregard for the law and for

the lives and safety of others, including Plaintiffs.

161. Defendants committed the acts and omissions alleged in this complaint and

subjected Plaintiffs to improper treatment that caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional

distress so severe that no person should be expected to endure it.

162. Defendants’ actions should be punished, and an example should be made so that

these actions and omissions are not repeated.

163. The recovery of punitive damages is permitted under the federal civil rights


statutes for reckless and callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others,

and is thus appropriate in this case.

164. This instance of reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ safety and

constitutional rights should be punished through the imposition of punitive damages so as

to make an example of conduct that must not be tolerated.

ATTORNEY’S FEES



166. As a result of Defendants’ actions as alleged in this complaint, Plaintiffs have

been required to retain the service of attorneys and are entitled to a reasonable amount for

attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. §1988 for those violations covered by the Civil

Rights Act.

DAMAGES



168. The acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above have resulted in injury to

Plaintiffs.

169. By virtue of these injuries, Plaintiffs are entitled to the following damages from

all defendants:

a) For Injunctive Relief in the form of an order requiring that the explicit instruction and

policy be made requiring DCP&P workers to refrain from abuse of process; and

b) Compensatory Damages in the amount of $10,000,000.00; and

c) Punitive damages in $50,000,000 or a reasonable amount that is sufficient to adequately



Documents

KENNETH ROSELLINI (6047) ATTORNEY AT LAWmedia.nj.com/warrenreporter_impact/other/Zimmer... · domiciled in the State of Jersey, and has resided in Warren County, New Jersey at times