Regarding an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution challenging the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:
Assuming that all of Armbruster’s factual allegations can be proved, does the Plaintiff, Victor Matute, have a case?
Write an opinion as if you were the judge addressing both causes of action, i.e., both theories under which Plaintiff is suing Armbruster.
In STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VICTOR MATUTE, in which Diane Armbruster of the Prosecutor's Office is being sued, her points if proven would tend to disprove the deprivation of the plaintiff's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws," as described by 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights. Consequently, if Armbruster can prove her allegations refuting Matute's complaints, then Matute does not have a case against Armbruster.