Whether the appellate court erred in upholding the dismissal of a malicious-prosecution claim despite allegations of false testimony and improper dismissal of the underlying criminal charge

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Jeffrey L. Clemens, a writer and activist, and former screenwriter, having found himself a longtime defendant in a state prosecution in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and having twice _ : been vindicated of a charge of disorderly conduct initiated on May 12, 2005, filed claims of malicious prosecution on June 11, 2018 for said charge, one for which final disposition did not occur until June 16, 2015. However, given the vagaries of a court injunction proffered by Respondent O’Hara’s defense counsel, plaintiffs claims remained stalled — under submission — until October 2020, at which time the district court, by self-styled order, pared the multi-party multi-claim case down to one defendant, Michael O’Hara, and one single claim. Upon timely service, the defendant filed a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, which was granted. The plaintiff took an appeal to the First Circuit but was _ denied relief. The questions presented in this case are as follows: 1. Whether the appellate court erred when it upheld, by and through an extremely terse and abbreviated judgment, the granting, by the district court, of a motion for dismissal on the pleadings wherein a socalled Heck bar was asserted although the subject prosecution had seen [a] a verdict set aside, [b] extensive allegations relating to the proffering and disguising of false testimony, and [c] a reintroduction of the subject charge of disorderly conduct and eventual final dismissal not by trial verdict but by motion. 2. Whether the appellate erred by ignoring or ; otherwise avoiding any meaningful Iqbal plausibility analysis by the district court, albeit hugely flawed, 1 [continued] when such court ruled upon a motion for reconsideration that clearly pointed out applicable . Heck bar exceptions as elucidated by Broussard, a noted Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling dating to 1949. 3. Whether the appellate court erred when it upheld the district court’s “bare assertion” analysis as it related to Iqbal and the issue of plausibility — doing so ; by complete and utter silence on the issue — this in light of forty-one [41] allegations in the subject complaint speaking to false testimony by respondent O’Hara and its cover-up for over ten years with the aid of numerous co-defendants. . W