971 F.3d 308
4th Cir.2020Background
- On Jan. 15, 2014 Officer Paul Myers cited Robert Salley for "congregating" on a Columbia sidewalk; Myers and Salley offer sharply conflicting accounts of the encounter.
- Myers handcuffed and searched Salley, issued a summons under Columbia City Code § 22-72, and served as the prosecutor for the municipal citation.
- Salley immediately filed an internal affairs complaint and requested a jury trial; the complaint was never investigated and the case remained pending for >3 years.
- At a roster meeting in July 2017, Myers told Salley he would nolle prosse the charge (saying he "cut [him] a break" due to age/delay); Salley later said he wanted to go to court.
- Salley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution (having dismissed his false-arrest claim); the district court granted summary judgment for Myers, finding no favorable termination.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding a genuine dispute of material fact exists about whether the nolle prosse was entered for reasons consistent with Salley’s innocence and that credibility must be left to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal proceedings terminated in Salley’s favor (favorable-termination element for § 1983 malicious prosecution) | Salley: a jury could infer the nolle prosse reflected his innocence from his testimony and corroborating circumstantial evidence (IA complaint, immediate jury demand, statements Myers made at arrest and dismissal). | Myers: an unexplained nolle prosse does not show favorable termination; he nolle prossed to "cut [Salley] a break" (age, delay); no evidence rebuts that explanation. | Vacated summary judgment. Court held there is a genuine dispute on whether the nolle prosse was consistent with innocence; that is a jury question. |
| Whether the district court applied the correct summary-judgment standard regarding credibility | Salley: the court improperly credited Myers and failed to view facts in the light most favorable to Salley. | Myers: the record supports his explanation and Salley pointed to no evidence contradicting it. | Court agreed with Salley: district court erred by uncritically accepting Myers’ testimony and weighing credibility on summary judgment. |
| Relevance of circumstantial evidence (IA complaint, jury demand, statements) to motive for nolle prosse | Salley: these facts corroborate his innocence and are probative of Myers’ motive to dismiss on innocence grounds. | Myers: those facts are speculative or unrelated to Myers’ reasons for dismissal; Salley never objected to the dismissal in court. | Court: the circumstantial evidence could lead a jury to infer lack of reasonable grounds for prosecution; evidence is material and creates a triable issue. |
| Whether a nolle prosse alone can satisfy favorable-termination under South Carolina law | Salley: nolle prosse can qualify when entered for reasons implying innocence (McKenney exception). | Myers: South Carolina law treats nolle prosse as discretionary and not generally a favorable termination unless objective evidence shows dismissal based on merits/innocence. | Court acknowledged the McKenney standard but found disputed facts as to whether McKenney’s exception applies here; remanded for factfinding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Munday, 848 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2017) (§ 1983 malicious-prosecution framework incorporates common-law elements)
- Snider v. Seung Lee, 584 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (favorable termination requires disposition indicating innocence)
- McKenney v. Jack Eckerd Co., 402 S.E.2d 887 (S.C. 1991) (South Carolina permits nolle prosequi to qualify when entered for reasons implying innocence)
- Nicholas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., [citation="33 F. App'x 61"] (4th Cir. 2002) (predicting SC courts require plaintiff to show circumstances of nolle imply innocence)
- Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2018) (summary-judgment review requires viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant; courts must not resolve credibility)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (U.S. 2019) (favorable-termination element satisfied when judgment for plaintiff would imply invalidity of criminal proceedings)
- Mackey v. State, 595 S.E.2d 241 (S.C. 2004) (nolle prosequi under SC law extinguishes charges but permits reindictment prior to jeopardy attaching)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard: whether evidence requires submission to a jury)