Eric Skidmore v. Walmart South Haven MS

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted Walmart’s motion for summary judgment in Eric Skidmore’s pro se action arising from his arrest and conviction for shoplifting. The court construed the pleadings as asserting malicious prosecution, perjury and false accusations, false arrest, and abuse of process claims. It held that the claims were barred by various substantive deficiencies, witness immunity or lack of a private perjury action, insufficient evidence, and applicable statutes of limitations.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff cannot establish Mississippi malicious prosecution when the underlying criminal proceeding ended in a conviction rather than a favorable termination. Skidmore also failed to establish lack of probable cause, malice, or timely filing, so summary judgment was proper on this claim.
2. A witness is absolutely immune from a civil suit based on testimony given in an adversarial criminal or civil proceeding, and Mississippi does not recognize a private right of action for perjury. Skidmore therefore could not maintain claims based on the Walmart employee's trial testimony.
3. Skidmore could not establish a genuine issue of material fact on false arrest because the surveillance video and his shoplifting conviction supplied probable cause, and the claim was filed more than one year after the arrest.
4. Skidmore could not maintain an abuse-of-process claim based merely on Walmart's filing of a criminal shoplifting complaint or on unsupported allegations that Walmart caused his arrest and conviction. He produced no competent evidence of an illegal use of process, ulterior motive, or resulting damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Skidmore's malicious prosecution claim could survive summary judgment when his criminal case ended in a conviction rather than a favorable termination, when he had not shown lack of probable cause or malice, and when the claim was untimely.
2. Whether claims based on alleged perjury and false accusations by a Walmart employee were barred by witness immunity and the absence of a private right of action for perjury.
3. Whether Skidmore presented competent evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on his false arrest claim, and whether that claim was barred by probable cause and the statute of limitations.
4. Whether Skidmore presented evidence supporting an abuse-of-process claim, and whether filing a criminal shoplifting complaint alone constitutes an illegal use of legal process.
5. Whether Walmart was entitled to summary judgment on all claims.

Disposition

other