David L. Cunningham v. Joseph R. Hooker

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the dismissal of David L. Cunningham’s claims against a deputy sheriff and the Marshall County Commission. Although the court concluded that the malicious prosecution claim was filed within the applicable limitations period, it held that Cunningham could not establish the required lack of probable cause because the arrest warrant was valid. The court also upheld dismissal of the related due process, deliberate indifference, and negligent hiring and retention claims.

Holdings

1. The circuit court incorrectly determined that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of Cunningham's arrest and release. For a malicious-prosecution action, the limitations period begins upon termination of the underlying prosecution; the opinion identifies the State's dismissal of the criminal complaint as the termination date.
2. Cunningham failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution because he did not challenge the validity of the arrest warrant, which established probable cause for his arrest.
3. The circuit court did not err by dismissing the remaining claims because they arose from the same factual assertions as the unsuccessful malicious-prosecution claim and were unsupported by the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court properly dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim as barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether Cunningham stated a claim for malicious prosecution despite the existence of a valid arrest warrant establishing probable cause.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by failing to separately address the claims for due process violation, deliberate indifference, and negligent retention and hiring.

Disposition

affirmed