Summary
Plaintiff-appellant, proceeding pro se, appealed the dismissal of her malicious prosecution claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that she failed to plead the charges against her terminated in her favor, as the dismissal of a stalking charge without an affirmative indication of innocence did not satisfy the favorable termination element. The court also rejected her judicial bias claims as unsupported and clarified that § 1915(e)(2) applies to non-prisoner complaints filed in forma pauperis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly dismissed Whitnum's malicious prosecution claim for failure to plead favorable termination.
- Whether the district court's rulings were affected by judicial bias.
Holdings
- The dismissal of a malicious prosecution claim is proper when the plaintiff fails to plead that the charges terminated in a manner indicating innocence.
- Section 1915(e)(2) applies to complaints filed in forma pauperis by non-prisoners.
- Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.
Key quotations
“To avoid dismissal, a complaint must plead 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” (at 2)
“When a person has been arrested and indicted, absent an affirmative indication that the person is innocent of the offense charged, the government's failure to proceed does not necessarily imply a lack of reasonable grounds for the prosecution.” (at 4)
“has not plausibly alleged that any of the criminal proceedings against [her] were terminated in a manner indicating [her] innocence” (at 4)
“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” (at 5)
Factual background
Whitnum was charged with stalking and other offenses. The stalking charge was dropped. Whitnum filed a malicious prosecution claim against the state's attorney's office and others. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed Whitnum's amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Whitnum appealed.