Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
In October 2021, Officer Charles Brown of the Town’s police department issued Maurice Williams a misdemeanor summons under the Town’s “dogs not to run at large” ordinance, with a court date of December 7, 2021. Though Williams did not attend because he claims he was unable to appear in response to this summons because the court was not in session on that day, a warrant was issued for Williams’s arrest for failure to appear.
On February 28, 2022, the district attorney contacted Williams to inform him of the warrant. On the morning of March 2, Officer Brown went to Williams’s residence to execute the warrant and arrest Williams. Williams alleges that the following occurred during execution of the arrest: Officer Brown needlessly pepper-sprayed Williams, beat Williams, and caused serious bodily harm to Williams’ neck. Officer Brown grabbed Williams’ left hand and shoved it in between his shoulder blades, slammed his face into a door, injuring his head, all while Williams was barefoot and with a cast on one arm. Williams did not resist arrest, and at age 70, would be no threat to an officer.
In February 2023, Williams filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest and malicious prosecution. The district court dismissed and the 5th affirmed.
Analysis
A. Excessive Force
The district court found that Williams did not meet his burden, as Williams’s conclusory allegation that Brown acted with malice was insufficient. We agree with the district court that Officer Brown is entitled to qualified immunity.
B. False arrest
The district court denied Williams’ federal false arrest claims because Officer Brown conducted the arrest pursuant to a facially valid bench warrant. We agree. Under federal law, if there was probable cause for any of the charges made, then the arrest was supported by probable cause, and the claim for false arrest fails. See Deville. As such, summary judgment as to the false arrest claim was proper.
C. Malicious prosecution
We also agree with the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment concerning Williams’s federal malicious prosecution claim.
In this circuit, the plaintiff must show:
(1) the commencement or continuance of an original criminal proceeding;
(2) its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding;
(3) its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff;
(4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding;
(5) malice; and
(6) damages.
See Espinal.
Because, for the same reasons as above, we find that the arrest was supported by probable cause, Williams failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to the fourth element, and summary judgment was appropriate.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/26/26-30139.0.pdf