Opinion ID: 3061741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Malicious Prosecution (Counts 3 and 6)

Text: Finally, German argues that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity and summary judgment to the Defendants on German’s malicious prosecution claims. “To establish a federal malicious prosecution claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) the elements of the common law tort of malicious prosecution, and (2) a violation of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.” Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1234 (11th 2 In fact, as Defendants point out, we previously held in Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004), that an officer’s use of a taser gun against a suspect resisting arrest during a traffic stop did not constitute excessive force. Id. at 1278. 8 Cir. 2004). Common law malicious prosecution comprises six elements under Florida law: (1) an original judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued; (2) the present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding; (3) the termination of the original proceeding constituted a bona fide termination of that proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) there was an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding; (5) there was malice on the part of the present defendant; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the original proceeding. Id. (citing Durkin v. Davis, 814 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). Because we agree with the district court that the Defendants had probable cause to arrest German, German has not proved the fourth element of common law malicious prosecution, and therefore this claim fails. Thus, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on German’s malicious prosecution claims. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity and summary judgment to the Defendants on German’s claims for false arrest/imprisonment, unnecessary and excessive use of force, and malicious prosecution. AFFIRMED.3 3 Appellant’s request for oral argument is DENIED. 9