Burton v. Undercover Officer, 671 F. App'x 4

Background

Plaintiff Ewart Burton (pro se) appealed the dismissal of § 1983 claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process arising from his March 2011 arrest and prosecution.
The district court dismissed the false arrest claim based on collateral estoppel from a prior case that found probable cause for two of five charges arising from the same arrest.
The district court also dismissed Burton’s malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims for failure to plead necessary facts, but did not analyze whether collateral estoppel applied to malicious prosecution.
Burton argued the prior ruling did not bar his new claims as to charges for which probable cause was not previously found.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and applied pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and collateral estoppel principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether false arrest claim is precluded by collateral estoppel	Burton argued prior case did not preclude new false arrest claim	Defendants argued prior finding of probable cause for two charges collaterally estops Burton’s false arrest claim	Affirmed: collateral estoppel bars false arrest claim because prior proceeding decided probable cause for the arrest
Whether malicious prosecution claim is defeated by prior probable-cause finding	Burton argued some charges lacked prior probable cause so malicious prosecution survives	Defendants argued prior partial finding of probable cause defeats the malicious prosecution claim in whole	Vacated/Remanded: prior case established probable cause only for some charges; malicious prosecution requires charge-by-charge analysis so cannot be resolved by collateral estoppel here
Whether abuse of process claim was properly dismissed for failure to plead	Burton contended pleadings suffice to state ulterior purpose or malice	Defendants maintained plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing ulterior motive or malice	Vacated/Remanded: dismissal vacated; complaint did not plausibly plead claims but pro se status warrants opportunity to amend
Whether district court should have given leave to amend / appointed counsel	Burton sought relief as pro se litigant to cure pleading defects	Defendants argued dismissal was proper without further amendment	Remanded: court instructs district court to consider liberal amendment for pro se and allow Burton to request appointed counsel

Key Cases Cited

Barrows v. Burwell, 777 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
Spool v. World Child Int’l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2008) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of collateral estoppel)
ACLI Gov’t Sec., Inc. v. Rhoades, 963 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1992) (defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel permitted)
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (non-mutual collateral estoppel doctrine)
Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2003) (probable cause defeats false arrest claim)
Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2003) (probable cause is complete defense to malicious prosecution)
Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1991) (requirement to analyze probable cause for each individual charge)
Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563 (2d Cir. 1996) (separate probable cause analysis for multiple charges)
Morales v. City of New York, 752 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2014) (abuse of process requires allegation of ulterior motive)
Posr v. Court Officer Shield No. 207, 180 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of pro se malicious prosecution claims)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (pro se complaints should be liberally construed and given leave to amend when possibly curable)