Opinion ID: 77695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Skop's Malicious Prosecution Claim

Text: 75 In addition to her § 1983 false arrest claim, Skop brought a § 1983 federal malicious prosecution claim 6 against Officer Brown. As the district court properly recognized, the Eleventh Circuit has identified malicious prosecution as a violation of the Fourth Amendment and a viable constitutional tort cognizable under § 1983. Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872, 881 (11th Cir.2003). The district court then determined that Skop had failed to show that Officer Brown acted without probable cause, a necessary element of her § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, Dist. Ct. Order at 20, and thus found that Brown was also entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim. While it is surely true that a Fourth Amendment violation is a necessary element of a federal malicious prosecution claim, Wood, 323 F.3d at 882, we have already found that Officer Brown's actions, when viewed in a light most favorable to Skop, constituted a violation of clearly established law. Accordingly, we are also required to reverse and remand the entry of final summary judgment for Brown on Skop's federal malicious prosecution claim.