Searcy v. Lynch

W.D. Missouri

Searcy v. Lynch

DecidedJanuary 23, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-00806

StatusUnknown

This text of Searcy v. Lynch (Searcy v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Searcy v. Lynch, (W.D. Mo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID SEARCY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:18-cv-0806-DGK ) GARRET LYNCH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff David Searcy’s claim that Defendants arrested him without probable cause on charges of obstruction of justice, public intoxication, and failure to comply with a police order. Now before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 5) on Count Two, Plaintiff’s state law claim for malicious prosecution. Defendants argue, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that this claim is time-barred. Under Missouri law, the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution is two years, and the action accrues upon the termination of the allegedly malicious prosecution in the plaintiff’s favor. Williams v. S. Union Co., 364 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Mo. App. 2011). The record shows that Plaintiff was acquitted of all three charges on July 22, 2016, and so Plaintiff had until July 22, 2018, to file his malicious prosecution claim. He did not do so until August 31, 2018, over one month after the statute of limitations ran. Thus, with respect to Count Two, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court enters summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Count Two. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 23, 2019 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID SEARCY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:18-cv-0806-DGK ) GARRET LYNCH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff David Searcy’s claim that Defendants arrested him without probable cause on charges of obstruction of justice, public intoxication, and failure to comply with a police order. Now before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 5) on Count Two, Plaintiff’s state law claim for malicious prosecution. Defendants argue, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that this claim is time-barred. Under Missouri law, the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution is two years, and the action accrues upon the termination of the allegedly malicious prosecution in the plaintiff’s favor. Williams v. S. Union Co., 364 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Mo. App. 2011). The record shows that Plaintiff was acquitted of all three charges on July 22, 2016, and so Plaintiff had until July 22, 2018, to file his malicious prosecution claim. He did not do so until August 31, 2018, over one month after the statute of limitations ran. Thus, with respect to Count Two, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court enters summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Count Two. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 23, 2019 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Searcy v. Lynch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/searcy-v-lynch-mowd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack