Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 4

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–659 
_________________ 

LARRY THOMPSON, PETITIONER v. 
PAGIEL CLARK, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[April 4, 2022]

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Larry Thompson was charged and detained in state crim-
inal  proceedings,  but  the  charges  were  dismissed  before 
trial  without  any  explanation  by  the  prosecutor  or  judge.
After the dismissal, Thompson alleged that the police offic-
ers who initiated the criminal proceedings had “maliciously
prosecuted”  him  without  probable  cause.  App.  33–34.
Thompson sued and sought money damages from those of-
ficers  in  federal  court.    As  relevant  here,  he  advanced  a 
Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for ma-
licious prosecution. 

To maintain that Fourth Amendment claim under §1983, 
a  plaintiff  such  as  Thompson  must  demonstrate,  among 
other things, that he obtained a favorable termination of the 
underlying  criminal  prosecution.  Cf.  Heck  v.  Humphrey, 
512 U. S. 477, 484, and n. 4 (1994).  This case requires us to
flesh out what a favorable termination entails.  Does it suf-
fice  for  a  plaintiff  to  show  that  his  criminal  prosecution
ended  without  a  conviction?  Or  must  the  plaintiff  also
demonstrate that the prosecution ended with some affirm-
ative indication of his innocence, such as an acquittal or a