Judge dismisses former SCCC student’s lawsuit, citing ‘unintelligible’ and ‘implausible’ claims

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by former Sussex County Community College (SCCC) student Lee Coffey this week after finding Coffey’s allegations against the college, county officials, Newton Police Department and others were improperly pleaded and lacked plausibility and failed to state a claim. But the court rejected the defendants’ argument that Coffey could not proceed with his suit because he fled the state after he was convicted of assault in state court.

Coffey has 30 days from the dismissal date to file an amended claim.

Coffey, a former international student at the college, filed the lawsuit last February in U.S. District Court in New Jersey alleging he “became a target of a coordinated campaign of retaliation” after attempting to expose what he believed to be an “unlawful housing scheme.”

Seeking $6 million in damages, Coffey said he and 20 other international students were placed into housing orchestrated by SCCC and overseen by then-college president Jon Connolly through housing provider Kevin Shaw.The Court held that Coffey’s “unintelligible” 124-page complaint failed to comply with rules requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim” and was a “group pleading” that left the defendants “to guess as to who allegedly did what.”

In granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals also wrote the following beginning on page 10 of the 11-page decision:

“The factual scenario plaintiff alleges is implausible. He claims defendants engaged in ‘a coordinated racketeering blackmail scheme...abuse, extortion, retaliation, fraud, money laundering, labor trafficking and obstruction of justice, put cameras in plaintiff’s room, amassed a private security force to harass plaintiff, concealed student suicides, issued plaintiff more than 30 summonses as means of harassment, broke into plaintiff’s car and stole documents, assassinated an international student, manufactured a false flag operation to blame plaintiff for a bomb threat, suppressed video evidence and used subpoenas as a pretext for large-scale intelligence gathering on community groups. Taken individually, none of these allegations are fantastic. Rather it is the vast power, scope, and complication of the whole alleged conspiracy ... that make the allegations surpass all credulity... The court does not take these allegations as true. Without them, the amended complaint does not plausibly plead enough factual matter to state a claim.”

Dismissed without prejudice

Coffey’s lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which means Coffey has 30 days from the Feb. 2 decision date to file an amended pleading that addresses the deficiencies identified in the judge’s decision.

“Judge Neals did not find my allegations wholesale implausible, did not reject my factual narrative, and did not adjudicate the merits of any claim,” Coffey said when asked for a comment. “The court issued a Rule 8 pleading-structure dismissal without prejudice, directing me to file a second amended complaint that pleads defendant-specific allegations with greater clarity. My first amended complaint intentionally grouped defendants together as a strategic choice in light of the interlocking conduct alleged from both college and county officials. The court has now required a more granular presentation which is typical at this stage. That ruling concerns structure and clarity – not credibility, truthfulness, or the merits of the claims.”

Coffey also took issue with how Judge Neals characterized his allegations. He denied that his claim that a student “was killed suddenly and unexpectedly in a motorcycle accident” amounted to an allegation that defendants “assassinated an international student.” He also disagreed with the Court’s suggestion that his complaint alleged that defendants “concealed student suicides.” And Coffey contended that other claims were “objectively verifiable.”

Coffey said he plans to file a second amended complaint within the 30-day period and noted that “complex” cases often go forward even after the initial complaint has been dismissed without prejudice.

A spokesperson for Sussex County Board of Commissioners and the community college said “We agree with Judge Neals’ decision... Mr. Coffey’s complaints are baseless, and the court identified them as such saying the complaint lacks a ‘plausible factual basis.’ While the court did give Mr. Coffey 30 days to try to come up with a factual basis to try and support his absurd claims, I think the depth and breadth of the court’s opinion is a peek behind the curtain [showing] that they know [a factual basis] just doesn’t exist.”

Fugitive disentitlement doctrine

The judge did not agree with defendants’ argument to dismiss the case based on Coffey’s status as a fugitive. Judge Neals ruled that it was not persuasively argued that Coffey’s “fugitive status would delay or frustrate the merits of his claims.”

In 2024 Coffey was convicted of third-degree aggravated assault against Kevin Shaw, Coffey’s housing provider while at SCCC. During trial Coffey disappeared and a judge issued a bench warrant for Coffey’s arrest after he “absconded halfway through trial.”