Margheim v. Buljko
855 F.3d 1077
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In early 2010 Margheim was prosecuted in two domestic-violence (D.V.) matters; after missing a hearing his original bond was forfeited and a new $6,000 bond was later posted.
- Prosecutor Emela Buljko filed a sworn motion to revoke the $6,000 bond based on a statement that Margheim had a "new offense," but the timing in her statement was incorrect.
- A warrant issued based on Buljko’s statement; Margheim was arrested on that warrant, police discovered drugs during the arrest, and Weld County charged him in a separate Drug Case.
- The state court granted Margheim’s motion to suppress the drug evidence because the arrest warrant lacked probable cause; the prosecutor then dismissed the Drug Case.
- Margheim sued Buljko under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution (Fourth Amendment) in her individual capacity; the district court denied Buljko’s motion for qualified and absolute immunity.
- The Tenth Circuit, on interlocutory appeal, reversed as to qualified immunity, holding Margheim failed to show the Drug Case’s dismissal was a "favorable termination" indicative of innocence, so he could not establish a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution violation.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which underlying prosecution is the relevant "original action" for malicious-prosecution purposes? | Margheim: the Drug Case (warrant arrest led to drug charge and detention). | Buljko: earlier First D.V. Case controls (Margheim pled guilty there). | Held: Drug Case is the relevant action because that is the theory Margheim pursues. |
| Was the dismissal of the Drug Case a "favorable termination" indicative of innocence? | Margheim: suppression and dismissal show favorable termination. | Buljko: dismissal after suppression is a technical/ evidentiary dismissal and does not indicate innocence. | Held: Not favorable—the suppression was based on warrant invalidity and dismissal was for lack of suppressed evidence, not a showing of innocence. |
| Did Margheim establish a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution violation (all elements)? | Margheim: yes—Buljko’s false statement caused his prosecution, no probable cause, and dismissal. | Buljko: even accepting facts, Margheim cannot prove the favorable-termination element. | Held: No; failure on favorable-termination defeats the constitutional violation element. |
| Is Buljko entitled to immunity (absolute or qualified)? | Margheim argued immunity defenses were improper to grant. | Buljko: asserted absolute immunity and, alternatively, qualified immunity. | Held: Court need not decide absolute immunity; Buljko entitled to qualified immunity because Margheim failed to show a constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (sets fifth-element framework for § 1983 malicious-prosecution: cause, favorable termination, no probable cause, malice, damages)
- Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 816 F.3d 645 (10th Cir. 2016) (termination must indicate innocence; dismissals on technical/procedural grounds generally not "favorable")
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (Fourth Amendment can underpin § 1983 claims for pretrial detention even after institution of legal process)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity analysis and importance of early resolution)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of immunity is immediately appealable)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (malicious-prosecution actions require prior proceeding terminated in favor of the accused)