DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Thomas Thompson (“plaintiff” or “Thompson”) filed this 19-page complaint, consisting of 85 separate paragraphs with 195 pages of exhibits, including the minutes of a 50-h Examination1, against four New York State Troopers, a former Assistant District Attorney, and two private citizens, claiming a broad conspiracy by the defendants spanning three years from 2014 to 2017. The alleged “conspiracy” was to violate Thompson’s civil rights in violation of 42 United States Code, Section 1983. At the heart of plaintiff’s complaint is the allegation that he was arrested and charged with several New York State law violations solely in retaliation for his having filed two civilian complaints against one of the New York State Troopers. The named defendants are New York State Trooper Kenneth Kline (“Trooper Kline”), New York State Trooper James Collings (“Trooper Collings”), former Steuben County Assistant District Attorney Todd J. Casella (“ADA Casella”), New York State Police Sergeant John Roe (“Sergeant Roe”), New York State Police Lieutenant Michael McDarby (“Lieutenant McDarby”), and private citizens Patrick Mosko (“P. Mosko”) and Shawn Mosko (“S. Mosko”) (collectively, the “defendants”). Although plaintiff’s prolix complaint sets forth many facts which plaintiff contends supports his broad “conspiracy” theory, the complaint really boils down to two separate incidents. The first relates to a traffic stop on March 27, 2015 by Trooper Kline which resulted in his issuance of a traffic ticket for a bald tire on a Chevy Tahoe driven by Thompson. Plaintiff took exception to the traffic ticket and filed a civilian complaint against Trooper Kline. In doing so, he filed a sworn statement on April 10, 2015. Thompson was later indicted for filing a false instrument relating to that statement. The second incident about which plaintiff complains is his arrest on February 26, 2017 for allegedly assaulting his then-girlfriend, Stacey Taber (“Taber”). The alleged assault — which left Taber bloodied — was reported by Taber and Thompson and a different New York State Trooper, Trooper James Collings, and an ambulance with EMTs responded to the residence. Taber was transported to a hospital for treatment and it was that domestic incident which resulted in Thompson being charged with Assault in the third degree. Thompson surmises and now alleges that these charges were improper, made without probable cause and were simply retaliatory acts done in retribution or retaliation for Thompson filing two civilian complaints against Trooper Kline. The civilian complaints against Trooper Kline related to a complaint that he was allegedly on plaintiff’s property without permission in August 2014 and that Trooper Kline executed the March 27, 2015 traffic stop which resulted from the bald tire without probable cause. Pending are three motions: first, Trooper Collings’s, Trooper Kline’s, Lieutenant McDarby’s and Sergeant Roe’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 17); second, P. Mosko’s and S. Mosko’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 18); and third, ADA Casella’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) (Dkt. # 25). For the following reasons, the motions are granted, and Thompson’s complaint is dismissed. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards A. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Trs. of Upstate New York Eng’rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt., 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 2279 (2017). A court may also “consider any written instrument attached to the [c]omplaint as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.” City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752 F.3d 173, 179 (2d Cir. 2014) (alterations and quotations omitted). B. Standard on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed[,] but early enough not to delay trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c).2 The standard applicable to Rule 12(c) motions mirrors that for motions brought under Rule 12(b)(6). See Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). II. Trooper Colling’s, Trooper Kline’s, Lieutenant McDarby’s and Sergeant Roe’s Motion to Dismiss A. Claims against Trooper Collings Thompson alleges three causes of action against Trooper Collings: (1) conspiring with ADA Casella to have Thompson unlawfully incarcerated (Dkt. # 1 at
43-49); (2) false imprisonment (id. at
