State v. Clark, 2011 ND 157

Holkesvig faced stalking and restraining order charges in Grand Forks County in 2008.
Welte (State’s Attorney) supervised Larson (assistant) and Smith (deputy) who prosecuted the case.
Holkesvig pled guilty to stalking in exchange for dismissal of the restraining-order charge and received deferred imposition of sentence on unsupervised probation.
In 2010 Holkesvig, representing himself, filed small-claims actions against Welte, Larson, and Smith; actions were removed to district court and consolidated.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on immunity grounds and on the theory that Holkesvig’s malicious-prosecution claim failed due to his guilty plea and deferred sentence; it awarded costs and later sanctions for Rule 11(b).
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Holkesvig cannot establish favorable termination and thus cannot sustain a malicious-prosecution claim; costs, disbursements, and a Rule 11 sanction were properly awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether malicious prosecution requires favorable termination.	Holkesvig can show termination in his favor.	Guilty plea and plea agreement negate favorable termination.	No; termination in favor not shown due to guilty plea.
Whether a charge dismissed as part of a plea bargain satisfies favorable termination.	Dismissals under plea are favorable termination.	Plea-dismissal does not amount to favorable termination for malicious-prosecution purposes.	Not satisfied; plea-based dismissal does not constitute favorable termination.
Whether Holkesvig’s claims are barred by prosecutorial or witness immunity.	Immunity should not apply to civil claims.	Absolute immunity for prosecutors and witnesses applies.	Summary judgment proper on immunity grounds.
Whether the district court properly awarded costs, disbursements, and attorney fees.	Sanctions and costs improper.	Prevailing party entitled to costs; Rule 11 sanction warranted.	Costs and sanctions affirmed; no abuse of discretion.
Whether other grounds bar Holkesvig’s action independent of favorable termination.	Other theories keep action alive.	No viable theories remain after favorable-termination issue.	Affirmed on the underlying malicious-prosecution ruling; other grounds deemed unnecessary.

Kummer v. City of Fargo, 516 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 1994) (favorable termination requirement for malicious prosecution)
Richmond v. Haney, 480 N.W.2d 751 (N.D. 1992) (factors for malicious-prosecution claim; termination element)
Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1980) (limitations on favorable termination when plea or dismissal occurs)