A pro se complaint alleging misconduct by police, a judge, and others was dismissed after federal review.
Newark, NJ – A federal judge in New Jersey has dismissed a wide-ranging civil lawsuit filed by a Mahwah man who claimed his 2024 arrest and subsequent restraining order triggered financial loss, emotional harm, and violations of his constitutional rights. The ruling came after the court granted the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying filing fees but found his claims legally insufficient.
Andrew A. Accardo filed the lawsuit in October, naming multiple defendants including Mahwah police officers, the township, a municipal court judge, his estranged wife, and her legal representatives. The complaint stemmed from his June 22, 2024 arrest, which he alleged was based on “uncorroborated and fabricated” domestic violence accusations.
According to the court’s opinion, Accardo claimed a temporary restraining order issued after his arrest caused “catastrophic financial and emotional harm,” and further alleged that while detained, he was denied access to necessary blood pressure medication.
Lawsuit names police, judge, and private parties
The complaint outlined 12 separate counts, including alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims of fabrication of evidence, unlawful detention, and civil conspiracy. Accardo also brought claims against the judge who issued the restraining order and accused his wife and her attorney of fraud and abuse of process.
After reviewing the filing under federal screening standards, the court granted Accardo’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing him to pursue the case without paying court fees. However, the court ultimately dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Key Points
- Federal court granted fee waiver but dismissed the complaint after legal review
- Lawsuit challenged a June 2024 arrest and restraining order in Mahwah
- Claims included constitutional violations, conspiracy, and civil RICO
Court reviews claims under federal screening law
The court evaluated the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires judges to screen cases filed by plaintiffs who cannot afford filing fees. While the opinion acknowledged the breadth of Accardo’s allegations, it concluded that the claims did not meet the legal standards required to proceed.
Accardo’s filing also included allegations of deliberate indifference to medical needs while in custody and interference with parental rights, along with claims of disability discrimination and unlawful eviction from his marital home following a consent order.
The opinion did not indicate that any of the named defendants would face further proceedings in the case following dismissal.
