CA7: Malicious prosecution case is based on a lack of PC

Malicious prosecution claim is ultimately based on a lack of probable cause. Summary judgment here inappropriate. Gupta v. Melloh, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35934 (7th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021):

The briefing and discussions of this claim are a bit muddled, perhaps because the law on malicious prosecution was evolving in the Supreme Court and in this court just as this case was progressing. See id. Nevertheless, we can boil our conclusions down to a few simple observations. First, the Supreme Court decision in Manuel, makes clear that a plaintiff can bring a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention either before or after the start of the legal proceedings. Manuel, 137 S. Ct. at 918-19. Second, falsifying the factual basis for a judicial probable-cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 477 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978)).

It should be clear by this point that however this claim is framed, it also cannot be decided on summary judgment. We cannot determine whether Melloh violated Gupta’s Fourth Amendment rights unless we know whether he falsified the evidence needed for the probable cause determination, and that, in turn, depends on resolution of a contested factual dispute—whether or not Gupta resisted arrest. As we have concluded, that is a material disputed fact to be resolved at trial.