Opinion ID: 18489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution Claims

Text: 22 Appellants argue that the district court erred when it dismissed their abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The government urges us to affirm on the alternative ground that, as a matter of law, Appellants failed to state malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims. See Gulf Island, IV v. Blue Streak Marine, Inc., 940 F.2d 948, 952 (5th Cir. 1991)(In reviewing the district court's order, the appellate court can affirm on any ground presented to the district court, even though it may not have formed the basis for that court's decision.)
23 The FTCA applies state law to determine the government's liability for torts within the FTCA waiver of immunity. See 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2674. Under Texas law, there are seven elements for a malicious prosecution claim: (1) commencement of a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) causation (initiation or procurement) of the action by the defendant; (3) termination of the prosecution in the plaintiff's favor; (4) the plaintiff's innocence; (5) the absence of probable cause for the proceedings; (6) malice in filing the charge; and (7) damage to the plaintiff. See Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. 1997). The government asserts, and we agree, that Appellants cannot meet the fifth criterion, absence of probable cause. 24 Brown was indicted for bribing a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1)(A)& (C), which provides: 25 (b) Whoever (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives . . . anything of value to any public official . . . with intent 26 (A) to influence any official act; or 27 (B) to induce such public official . . . to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; 28 shall be [subject to criminal liability]. 29 Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor [complainant], that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Richey, 952 S.W.2d at 517 (citation omitted) (editing original). If the facts necessary to instigate a criminal prosecution are in dispute, the issue of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact to be resolved by a jury. Where the facts underlying the decision to prosecute are not disputed, however, then the question of probable cause is a question of law decided by the court. See Richey, 952 S.W.2d at 518. 30 It is undisputed that Brown accepted and delivered an envelope containing money to a United States Army procurement officer at his hotel room. The only dispute concerns Brown's mens rea - what he knew or intended. [T]he complainant's failure to make a further investigation into the suspect's state of mind does not constitute lack of probable cause if all objective elements of a crime reasonably appear to have been completed. Id. at 518. Even though the government's evidence might have been weak and the prospects of obtaining a conviction may nothave been good, as a matter of law, the government has proffered proof of probable cause, and thus, Appellants have failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution.
31 Under Texas law, there are three elements for an abuse of process claim: (1) that the defendant made an illegal, improper or perverted use of the process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the process; (2) that the defendant had an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of the process; and (3) that damage resulted to the plaintiff as a result of such illegal act. Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 73 F.3d 546, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). 32 Appellants' allegations are fatally defective because they fail to allege use of the process other than the mere institution of the criminal complaint, which was not improper. See In re Burzynski, 989 F.2d 733, 739 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, as a matter of law, Appellants have failed to state a claim for abuse of process upon which relief can be granted.