DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Eastern Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Eastern Division Case 1:09-cv-02216-TMP Document 24 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 14 FILED 2011 Mar-31 PM 03:00 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION JERRY COLEMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:09-cv-2216-TMP ) CHRIS SPARKS and ) SHAUN FIRESTONE, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This cause is before the court on the motion for summary judgment filed October 19, 2010, by the defendants, Chris Sparks and Shaun Firestone. Defendants seek dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims based upon the statute of limitations, qualified immunity, and other grounds based upon the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. This matter has been fully briefed. The court has considered the pleadings, evidence, and arguments set forth by both parties. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); accordingly, the court submits this memorandum opinion. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those Case 1:09-cv-02216-TMP Document 24 Filed 03/31/11 Page 2 of 14 portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. There is no requirement, however, “that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent’s claim.” Id. at 323. Once the moving party has met his burden, Rule 56(e) “requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The current version of Rule 56 still requires that the nonmoving party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must — by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule — set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The nonmoving party need not present evidence in a form necessary for admission at trial; however, she may not merely rest on her pleadings. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 322. 2 Case 1:09-cv-02216-TMP Document 24 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 14 After the plaintiff has properly responded to a proper motion for summary judgment, the court must grant the motion if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. “[T]he judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 249. His guide is the same standard necessary to direct a verdict: “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52; see also Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983). However, the nonmoving party “must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citations omitted); accord Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the court must “view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden,” so there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254; Cottle v. Storer Communication, Inc., 849 F.2d 570, 575 (11th Cir. 1988). Nevertheless, credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are the function of the jury, and therefore the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The non-movant need 3 Case 1:09-cv-02216-TMP Document 24 Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 14 not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference. Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n.12 (11th Cir. 1988). SUMMARY JUDGMENT FACTS Plaintiff Jerry Coleman brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alabama state law, contending that the defendants arrested him without arguable probable cause, injured him physically during the arrest, and then maliciously prosecuted him. He asserts a federal claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution,1 as well as state-law claims for trespass to real property,2 trespass to the person of the plaintiff,3 assault and battery,4 and false arrest.5 Plaintiff apparently agrees that there is no basis for “municipal liability,” as alleged in Count V of the complaint.6 Coleman’s claims arise from an incident that occurred on July 4, 2007, at Coleman’s 1 See Count III of the complaint. 2 Although labeled “Willful and Malicious Trespass, Assault and Battery and Trespass to the Person or Liberty of Another – State Law,” the text of Count I focuses on trespass by the defendants “upon Plaintiff's property [which] interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the same.” 3 Count II is labeled “Trespass to the Person and Liberty – State Law.” It alleges that the defendants “trespassed against Plaintiff's body,” “falsely imprisoned him... without... probable cause,” and “assaulted [plaintiff] in a rude and hostile manner in such a way as to imply malice, willfulness and bad faith.” 4 See Count IV of the complaint. 5 See Count II of the complaint. 6 See Plaintiff's brief in opposition to summary judgment (Doc. 22), p. 21. 4 Case 1:09-cv-02216-TMP Document 24 Filed 03/31/11 Page 5 of 14 home in Anniston, Alabama, during which Coleman was arrested by two Anniston Police Department officers, defendants Chris Sparks and Shaun Firestone. Viewing the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the plaintiff, the following facts are relevant to the instant motion. Between 10:30 and 11:00, on the evening of the Fourth of July in 2007, a group of adults and children were setting off fireworks from the yard of the home across the street from Coleman’s mother’s residence. Coleman lived in a house directly next to that of his mother. Coleman’s mother, Virginia, feared that the fireworks might damage her home, so she called the police several times to complain about the fireworks. Virginia was in her yard with a garden hose because she was fearful that the fireworks would cause a fire. Coleman’s wife, Rhonda, also was with Virginia in Virginia's yard. At least two Anniston police officers, defendants Sparks and Firestone, responded to the call. Plaintiff was inside his home next door, eating a watermelon. Suffering from a bout of gout, Coleman had spent the day lying in bed. When the defendant officers arrived, they first went to speak with Virginia and Rhonda about the fireworks. Although fireworks in Anniston are illegal, the overwhelming number of fireworks incidents that holiday prompted officers merely to warn people that fireworks were illegal, without citing them or otherwise instituting charges against such people. After speaking with Virginia and Rhonda, the officers agreed to go across the street to tell the family setting off the fireworks that they must cease due to their illegality. As the officers were walking across the street, Coleman came to the front door of his home and told the officers, who were standing in the yard at the time, that if they couldn’t stop the fireworks he would “call someone who could.” Rhonda told the plaintiff to go back into the house, which he did, closing the door behind him.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recent Decisions Charles T
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 21 | Issue 4 Article 3 6-1-1946 Recent Decisions Charles T. Dunn Arthur A. May Roger D. Gustafson Lawrence Turner Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles T. Dunn, Arthur A. May, Roger D. Gustafson & Lawrence Turner, Recent Decisions, 21 Notre Dame L. Rev. 369 (1946). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol21/iss4/3 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DECISIONS the same deduction as they allow an innocent defendant. Leading case so holding is the Weymouth v. Chicago and N. W. R. Co.9 Another rule which was laid down in a Supreme Court decision allows an innocent plaintiff to recover from the willful trespasser the value of the property at the time it is finally converted to the use of the trespasser; i.e., its value as enhanced by the labor of the defendant. It will be recalled that this rule is very similar to the one applied in the Indiana case above cited as Sunnyside v. Reitz, where the de- fendant's trespass was not willful, but was negligent. In summary of the above citations and discussions, it would seem sound advice to the person who contemplates conversion of metals and ores in Indiana to so do without the display of any willful or inten- tional act in addition to a course of complete abstention from all negligent performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts--Malicious Prosecution--Abuse of Process--Extradition-- Original Criminal Proceeding Undetermined (Keller V
    St. John's Law Review Volume 2 Number 1 Volume 2, December 1927, Number 1 Article 21 Torts--Malicious Prosecution--Abuse of Process--Extradition-- Original Criminal Proceeding Undetermined (Keller v. Butler, 246 N.Y. 249 (1927)) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DECISIONS principal case, based its holding on its prior decisions7 indicating that such prior decisions permitted the action. Examination of these decisions fails to disclose that any of the cases have been decided on such a theory. In one case the action was for negligence of a physician in the performance of his services.8 In others, the Court spelled out an express contract and held the defendant liable for a breach of that contract.9 The decision in the principal case was, at most, based on dicta in the prior decisions. However, it would appear that where there is a fiduciary or contractual relationship, in all justice, a cause of action should be maintainable.'0 The principal case presents possibilities for opening up an entire new field of litiga- tion, especially in New York where the complexities of modern business are at their height. This, however, should not deter a Court from handing down a decision that is sound in principle and does substantial justice.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposal for the Tort of Malicious Defense in Civil Litigation Jonathan K
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 35 | Issue 6 Article 1 1-1984 The Limits of Advocacy: A Proposal for the Tort of Malicious Defense in Civil Litigation Jonathan K. Van Patten Robert E. Willard Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan K. Van Patten and Robert E. Willard, The Limits of Advocacy: A Proposal for the Tort of Malicious Defense in Civil Litigation, 35 Hastings L.J. 891 (1984). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol35/iss6/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Limits of Advocacy: A Proposal for the Tort of Malicious Defense in Civil Litigation By JONATHAN K. VAN PATTEN* and ROBERT E. WILLARD** The law in most American jurisdictions has long recognized the torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.' Civil liability is * Professor of Law, University of South Dakota School of Law. B.A., 1970, Univer- sity of California at Los Angeles; J.D., 1973, University of California at Los Angeles. ** Partner in the firm of Galvin & Willard, Newport Beach, California. B.A., 1954, State College of Washington; LL.B., 1958, Harvard University. The authors thank the following people for their careful reading and thoughtful com- mentary on earlier drafts: Robert E. Driscoll III, John F. Hagemann, Stefan Weiss, Roger Damgaard, and Bruce Ford.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court District Of
    Case 3:17-cv-30030-MAP Document 24 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LE'KEISHA BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-30030-MAP ) AARON BUTLER, ) ) Defendant ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. No. 8) ROBERTSON, U.S.M.J. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Le'Keisha Brown ("Plaintiff") was arrested by Defendant Springfield Police Officer Aaron Butler ("Defendant") for disorderly conduct, assault and battery, and resisting arrest in the aftermath of Plaintiff's sister's arrest at 115 Westford Circle in Springfield, Massachusetts on March 10, 2015. Plaintiff's nine count complaint arising from this incident presents two federal causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988: a claim for unlawful arrest (Count I); and a claim for the use of excessive force (Count V). Plaintiffs' pendant state law claims allege violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act ("MCRA"), Mass Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 11H, 11I (Counts II and VI), false arrest (Count III), false imprisonment (Count IV), assault and battery (Count VII), malicious prosecution (Count VIII), and abuse of process (Count IX). Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in his individual capacity on March 24, 2017 (Dkt. No. 1). Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff has opposed dismissal, Defendant has replied to Plaintiff's opposition, and Plaintiff 1 Case 3:17-cv-30030-MAP Document 24 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 43 has submitted a sur-reply (Dkt.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
    Case 1:19-cv-00045-TWT Document 35 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION B. EDWARD BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:19-CV-45-TWT DANA C. REESE, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This is a Section 1983 action. It is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 26]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 26]. I. Background On February 22, 2017, the Defendant Dana C. Reese, a police officer with the DeKalb County Police Department, was working an approved part- time job at the Walmart located at 3850 Memorial Drive, Decatur, GA 30032. Def.’s SOMF, [Doc. 26], ¶ 1. During her patrol, Officer Reese observed the Plaintiff B. Edward Bryant carrying a rifle inside of the Walmart. Id. at ¶ 2. Before communicating with Bryant, Officer Reese learned from a Walmart employee that Walmart had issued a criminal trespass ban against Bryant. Reese Aff., [Doc. 26], ¶¶ 6-7. The Walmart employee had the criminal trespass document for Bryant in her hand. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. As Bryant began walking out T:\ORDERS\19\Bryant\19cv45\msjbll\msjtwt.docx Case 1:19-cv-00045-TWT Document 35 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 13 of the store, Officer Reese stopped him by yelling “excuse me sir.” Def.’s SOMF, at ¶ 2. It is disputed whether Bryant had completely exited the store or remained inside. Id. Officer Reese then asked for Bryant’s identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the San Diego City Attorney Is Among the Region's Largest Law Firms, Handling a Diverse Case Load
    C Attorney 2010 Annual Report Office of the San Diego City The Office of the San Diego City Attorney is among the region's largest law firms, handling a diverse case load. The City Attorney's Office advises the Mayor, the City Council and all its departments keeping the City out of new trouble as we deal with the multitude of past mistakes. The City Attorney’s Office prosecutes or defends law suits or cases to which the City may be a party and receives approximately 35,000 criminal cases per year involving persons charged with violations of the state laws occurring within the city limits of the City of San Diego for misdemeanor offenses. Office of the San Diego City Attorney 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1620 San Diego, CA 92101 619*236*6220 Office of the San Diego City Attorney Table of Contents I. CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION: GENERAL LITIGATION UNIT………………………………………………………………………………………3 SPECIAL LITIGATION UNIT………………………………………………………………………………………..5 CIVIL PROSECUTION UNIT………………………………………………………………………………………10 LAND USE LITIGATION UNIT……………………………………………………………………………………11 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION UNIT………………………………………………………………………….15 II. CIVIL ADVISORY DIVISION: PUBLIC SAFETY, LABOR, EMPLOYMENT, SPECIAL PROJECTS & TRAINING SECTION.16 PUBLIC WORKS UNIT……………………………………………………………………………………………..23 GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SECTION…………………………………………………………………………..25 PUBLIC FINANCE SECURITIES & DISCLOSURE SECTION…………………………………………..27 REAL PROPERTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECTION……………………………………….28 III. CRIMINAL DIVISION: CASE ISSUANCE UNIT……………………………………………………………………………………………..32 GENERAL
    [Show full text]
  • Malicious Prosecution As a Constitutional Tort: Continued Confusion and Uncertainty
    Touro Law Review Volume 15 Number 4 Article 26 1999 Malicious Prosecution as a Constitutional Tort: Continued Confusion and Uncertainty Esther M. Schonfeld Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Schonfeld, Esther M. (1999) "Malicious Prosecution as a Constitutional Tort: Continued Confusion and Uncertainty," Touro Law Review: Vol. 15 : No. 4 , Article 26. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss4/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Touro Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Schonfeld: Malicious Prosecution MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AS A CONSTITUTIONAL TORT: CONTINUED CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY Esther M. Schonfeld* INTRODUCTION Large numbers of plaintiffs who sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983' allege that they were subject to malicious prosecution. Because Section 1983 provides a claim for relief only for violations of federally protected rights, and not for state law wrongs, courts must determine whether the malicious prosecution claim states a violation of federal constitutional rights. Despite the great frequency with which the issue arises, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, inconsistency and confusion in the decisional law. The essential issue is whether the malicious prosecution claim states a violation of either Fourth Amendment, substantive or * J.D. Candidate 1999, Touro Law School; B.B.A. 1981, City University of New York, Bernard M. Baruch College. The author would like to thank Professor Martin Schwartz for inspiring me to write this article and for his invaluable advice and assistance throughout the development of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Allowing False Light Tort Claim by Defendant to Proceed to Discovery
    George v. Rehiel, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011) and showed TSA his identification. At the security 2011 WL 10621600 checkpoint x-ray device, he put his carry-on bags and Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. personal items on the conveyor belt. He emptied his United States District Court, pockets of metal, took off his shoes, and walked through E.D. Pennsylvania. the detector, which made no sound. He was directed to an Nicholas GEORGE adjacent area where a TSA screener (Doe 1) asked him to empty his pockets. He did so, removing a set of v. translation flashcards, each with Arabic words on one side William REHIEL, et al. and English on the other. The screener inspected the flashcards and then took plaintiff to a different area, Civil Action No. 10–586. | Oct. 28, 2011. where that screener and another (Doe 2) detained him for 15 minutes while they inspected his belongings. He was Attorneys and Law Firms not carrying weapons, explosives, or items that posed a safety risk. He was not carrying anything suggestive of David Rudovsky, Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg criminal or prohibited activity. He did not say or do LLP, Mary Catherine Roper, American Civil Liberties anything threatening or provocative. Union of Pennsylvania, Molly M. Tack–Hooper, Berger & Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA, Zachary Katznelson, Although the TSA screeners completed their search of Benjamin Elihu Wizner, Mitra Ebadolahi, American Civil plaintiff’s carry-on items, they detained him for an Liberties Union, New York, NY, for Nicholas George. additional 15–20 minutes. One screener flipped through pages of a book critical of United States foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:06-cv-00640-L Document 61 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 10 PageID 476 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CLINT GREGG,§ § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-0640-L § TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY,§ § Defendant. § AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court hereby vacates its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed March 20, 2008, and issues this Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order. The court issues the Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order to correct several typographical errors in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 20, 2008. The substance of the earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order is not changed, and the rulings made by the court in it are binding on the parties. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 5, 2007. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, appendices, briefs, and applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I. Procedural and Factual Background Clint Gregg (“Plaintiff” or “Gregg”) filed this action against Tractor Supply Company (“Defendant” or “TSC”) and Jill Cottle (“Cottle”)* on February 24, 2006 in County Court at Law, Number 1, Ellis County, Texas. Gregg, an employee of TSC at the time of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, contends that TSC intentionally and wrongfully accused him of stealing a chop *Cottle was dismissed from the action on October 26, 2006, because Plaintiff failed to effect service on her as ordered by the court. Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1 Case 3:06-cv-00640-L Document 61 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 10 PageID 477 saw, falsely and intentionally reported it to police, which caused him to be falsely arrested for theft.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 2 N.C.P.I.—Civil 801.00 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014 801.00 MALICIOU
    Page 1 of 2 N.C.P.I.—Civil 801.00 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014 ------------------------------ 801.00 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. The (state number) issue reads: "Did the defendant maliciously prosecute the plaintiff?" On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, three things:1 First, that the defendant [instituted a criminal proceeding] [caused a criminal proceeding to be continued]2 against the plaintiff without probable cause. "Probable cause" would exist if there are facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that prosecution is justified.3 You should consider only the facts and circumstances that the defendant knew or should have known at the time the proceeding was [instituted] [continued]. Second, that the defendant [instituted] [continued] the proceeding against the plaintiff with malice. "Malice" exists when a person acts out of a motive of ill will, spite, grudge, revenge, or oppression.4 "Malice" exists 1 Jones v. Gwynne, 312 N.C. 393, 397, 323 S.E.2d 9, 11 (1984); Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 202, 254 S.E.2d 611, 624 (1979). 2 Allison v. Food Lion, Inc., 84 N.C. App. 251, 254, 352 S.E.2d 256, 257 (1987) (continuation of a prosecution after probable cause is known not to exist may be a basis for a malicious prosecution action). NOTE WELL: Where a private individual gives information he reasonably believes to be true to a public official of another’s supposed criminal misconduct, if the public official then independently exercises his discretion whether to institute a criminal proceeding based upon that information, then the private individual is protected from liability, even if the information provided ultimately proves to be false.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterclaim for Malicious Prosecution in the Action Alleged to Be Malicious:'
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 58 be "in the interest of justice," encompasses far more than the criterion of convenience, and therefore prevents the escape of the defendant to a juris- diction in which the plaintiff cannot afford to sue.4' And where the court grants transfer to a forum in which the plaintiff can afford to sue, the de- fendant cannot hide behind jurisdictional barriers since a prerequisite to transfer is another available forum. Nor is the plaintiff subject to any de- lay if he selects the convenient forum as original venue.42 Thus the new trans- fer provision of the Judicial Code, while protecting antitrust defendants from an harassing and vexatious choice of venue, still permits protection of the penniless private litigant from the evading tactics of a wealthy, well-repre- sented corporate defendant. COUNTERCLAIM FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION IN THE ACTION ALLEGED TO BE MALICIOUS:' IN an original action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must allege and prove the termination in his favor of a prior suit instituted maliciously and without probable cause; I failure to allege the favorable termination of such a suit has uniformly been held to justify dismissal of the complaint.' have specifically applied the tests established in the Gull Oil case. Ferguson v. Ford Motor Co., 77 F. Supp. 425 (S.D. N.Y. 1948) (antitrust treble damage suit, motion denied); SEC v. Wimer, 75 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Pa. 1948) (SEC action, motion denied); Di Lella v, Lehigh Valley K-R., 7 F.R.D. 192 (S.D.N.Y. 1947) (negligence action, motion denied).
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:04-Cv-01531-GK Document 27 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 6
    Case 1:04-cv-01531-GK Document 27 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________________________ FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ) D.C. LODGE 1, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1531 (GK) ) ROGER A. GROSS ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, Fraternal Order of Police, DC Lodge 1, Inc., Fraternal Order of Police, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Labor Committee, Inc. (“BEP”) and Gregory O. Davis, Sr., Chairman of the BEP Labor Committee, bring suit against Defendant Roger A. Gross, a police inspector employed at all material times by the BEP. In this single-count Complaint, Plaintiffs allege abuse of process by Defendant. This matter is now before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Upon consideration of the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated below, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. I. BACKGROUND On July 6, 2001, Defendant commenced a civil action against Plaintiffs for intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. A. In that case Defendant alleged that, in order Case 1:04-cv-01531-GK Document 27 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 6 to interfere with his prospects for promotion, Plaintiffs: attacked Defendant's professional character and reputation; pressured a police officer to file false sexual harassment charges against him; charged him with violations of federal law; and initiated a vote of no confidence against him alleging 1) racism, 2) discrimination in decisions to promote, and 3) violation of personnel polices for personal gain.
    [Show full text]