USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 1 of 22
FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
No. 23-12854
T. MUELLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WALMART CORPORATION,
BRANDON ZACHARY BURSTON,
Defendants-Appellees,
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-04273-VMC
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
NEWSOM, Circuit Judge:
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 2 of 22
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
This case principally concerns the rules governing district
courts’ exercise of so-called “supplemental jurisdiction.” In particular, we must decide whether and under what circumstances a district court, having dismissed all federal-law claims in a case before
it, may proceed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over some
but not all of the remaining state-law claims.
Todd Mueller sued Walmart and one of its employees, alleging that they violated two federal civil-rights statutes, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981 and 1982, as well as state law on various grounds—false
arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery. The district court (1) found that Mueller had conceded and
thus abandoned his §§ 1981 and 1982 claims, and accordingly dismissed them; (2) exercised supplemental jurisdiction over and
granted summary judgment on Mueller’s false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims; and (3) declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mueller’s assault and battery
claims. On appeal, Mueller contends that the district court abused
its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over only
some of his state-law claims, rather than all or none of them, and
erred in granting summary judgment on his malicious-prosecution
claim.
For reasons we will explain, we hold that the district court
acted within its broad discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some but not all of the remaining state-law claims. We
also conclude, though, that the court should not have rejected
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 3 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 3
Mueller’s malicious-prosecution claim at summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
A
While Todd Mueller was shopping at a Walmart in Duluth,
Georgia, a store employee, Brandon Burston, suspected him of
shoplifting and proceeded to surveil him. After Mueller checked
out, Burston and another Walmart associate, Clifton Moore, approached and asked him to join them in an office. The parties dispute what happened next. At a minimum, though, we know this
much: Mueller turned back into the store and exited through a rear
entrance. Moore called the police, and Mueller fled.
The police successfully pursued Mueller, tased him, and arrested him for obstruction of justice. Burston later submitted to
the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County a sworn arrest-warrant
application for theft by shoplifting, which the court promptly issued. In the meantime, Mueller pursued his own claims with the
police against Burston and Moore for assault. A detective investigated Mueller’s statement but couldn’t substantiate it. Accordingly, an additional arrest warrant was issued against Mueller for
filing a false police report. When Mueller later returned to the
same Walmart, police arrested him on the outstanding false-policereport warrant.
All told, Mueller faced three charges: (1) obstruction of justice, (2) shoplifting, and (3) filing a false police report. The district USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 4 of 22
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
attorney’s office served Mueller with a Notice of Intent Not to
Prosecute with respect to the false-police-report charge. Mueller
and the prosecutor negotiated a plea on the obstruction count in
return for a one-year probationary sentence, and the prosecutor
simultaneously dropped the shoplifting charge.
The parties dispute whether and to what extent the obstruction and shoplifting charges and their dispositions are linked—and
in particular, whether the latter was dismissed in connection with
the plea agreement. Mueller stated in a declaration that he entered
the plea “exclusively in exchange for [the probationary] sentencing
recommendation,” and that, unrelatedly, “the District Attorney’s
Office unilaterally had decided not [to] pursue the [f]elony shoplifting case at that time because they were not prepared for trial which
was scheduled the same day.” Br. of Appellant at 40 n.2. By contrast, as proof that the obstruction and shoplifting charges were resolved as part of a single compromise, Walmart and Burston emphasize that the two were presented side-by-side in the charging
document and that Mueller’s counsel discussed them in tandem at
the plea hearing. See Br. of Appellee at 18–21.
B
Initially proceeding pro se, Mueller sued Walmart and
Burston in federal district court, raising federal-law claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, as well as state-law claims for negligence,
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 5 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 5
negligent hiring, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery. 1 Walmart and Burston moved for
summary judgment. In response, Mueller conceded and therefore
abandoned his only two federal claims, and the district court dismissed them. The district court also denied Mueller’s motion to
amend his operative complaint to substitute a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The court then turned to Mueller’s state-law claims,
disposing of them as follows:
• Negligence and negligent-hiring: The district court
held that Muller had abandoned his negligence-based
claims.2 Summ. J. Order at 11–12, Dkt. No. 95.
• False-arrest and false-imprisonment: The district court
granted summary judgment to Walmart and Burston on
the ground that Mueller had been neither detained nor
arrested for shoplifting by Walmart employees. Instead,
he was arrested for obstruction of justice only after he
left the store. Id. at 13–14. That fact foreclosed Mueller’s
claims, because, the court observed, Georgia law distinguishes “cases where a party directly or indirectly urges
a law enforcement official to begin criminal proceedings
[from] cases where a party merely relays facts to an official who then makes an independent decision to arrest or
1 Mueller initially sued Moore, as well, but the district court dismissed Moore
as a party when Mueller failed to serve him after obtaining leave to do so.
Mueller doesn’t contest that dismissal on appeal.
2 Mueller does not appeal that decision.
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 6 of 22
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
prosecute.” Id. at 14 (quoting Smith v. Walmart Stores E.,
LP, 765 S.E.2d 518, 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)).
• Malicious prosecution: The district court granted summary judgment to Walmart and Burston on the ground
that the shoplifting charge—which underlies Mueller’s
malicious-prosecution claim—was dropped in connection with the same plea agreement that covered the obstruction charge. See id. at 14–19. That fact foreclosed
Mueller’s claim because under Georgia law, a maliciousprosecution plaintiff must demonstrate that the underlying charge was “terminated favorably” to him, id. at 14–
15 (quoting Sheffield v. Futch, 839 S.E.2d 294, 301 (Ga. Ct.
App. 2020)), which he can’t do if the charge was resolved
as part of a plea or compromise, see id. at 15 (citing Garner
v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Co., 525 S.E.2d 145, 147 (Ga. Ct.
App. 1999)).
• Assault and battery: The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, finding that it had no
independent basis for original jurisdiction (e.g., diversity
of citizenship), dismissed these claims. Id. at 19–20 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). In so doing, the court noted
that the claims were “bitterly dispute[d],” particularly
with respect to the credibility of Mueller’s testimony. Id.
The upshot: Having dismissed Mueller’s only claims that
provided an independent basis for exercising original jurisdiction—
the federal-question §§ 1981 and 1982 claims—the district court
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 7 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 7
opted to (1) exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mueller’s falsearrest, false-imprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims, deciding them in Walmart and Burston’s favor, and (2) decline supplemental jurisdiction over Mueller’s assault and battery claims.
Through appointed counsel, Mueller raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends that the district court abused its discretion
by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some of the state-law
claims but declining jurisdiction over others. Second, he argues
that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his
malicious-prosecution claim.
II
The most salient question presented is whether, having dismissed Mueller’s federal claims, the district court abused its discretion by exercising jurisdiction over his state law false-arrest, falseimprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims but not his assault or battery claims. Mueller insists that the district court erred
for two reasons. First, and more broadly, he contends that absent
extenuating circumstances that don’t exist here, a district court per
se abuses its discretion when, after dismissing all federal claims, it
exercises supplemental jurisdiction over some state-law claims but
not others. See Br. of Appellant at 19–22. Second, and more narrowly, Mueller contends that the “balance” of the relevant “factors” required the district court to dismiss all the state-law claims—
and that, in any event, the court erred by failing to more clearly
explain its assessment of those factors. Id. at 17–19. For reasons
we’ll get into, we disagree on both scores. Accordingly, we hold
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 8 of 22
8 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some but not all of Mueller’s state-law
claims.
A
At the outset, a bit of background—about the governing
statutory language and the applicable standard of review.
First, the text. The rules governing federal courts’ exercise
of “supplemental jurisdiction” are codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For
present purposes, two subsections are relevant. Subsection (a)
states that
[e]xcept as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as
expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in
any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Subsection (c), in turn, provides that a district
court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
claim under subsection (a)” in any of four instances, the third of
which is particularly pertinent here:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State
law,
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 9 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 9
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the
claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
Id. § 1367(c).
Next, the standard of review. A district court’s decision to
exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim
is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. See Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Lab’ys, Inc., 803 F.3d 518, 532 (11th Cir. 2015) (retaining jurisdiction); Silas v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty., 55 F.4th 863, 865 (11th
Cir. 2022) (declining jurisdiction). “A district court does not abuse
its discretion when it has a range of choices and the court’s choice
does not constitute a clear error of judgment.” Estate of Amergi ex.
rel. Amergi v. Palestinian Auth., 611 F.3d 1350, 1365 (11th Cir. 2010)
(quotation omitted).
Giving district courts latitude to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction comports with the statutory text, longstanding
judicial policy, and common sense. For starters, as just noted,
§ 1367(c) provides that a district court “may” decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction if any of several circumstances obtains.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Moreover, long before Congress codified the
rules governing supplemental jurisdiction in 1990, the Supreme
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 10 of 22
10 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
Court had referred to what it then called “pendent jurisdiction” as
embodying a “doctrine of discretion” that entailed a balancing of
various practical considerations. United Mine Workers of Am. v.
Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). And finally, there’s this important
practical point: While not precisely identical, the “wide discretion”
given to a district court to make supplemental-jurisdiction determinations, Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353 (1988),
superseded by statute on other grounds, Judicial Improvements Act of
1990, PL 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5113, as recognized in Royal Canin
U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 41 (2025), coheres with the
“broad discretion” that a district court “is allowed . . . to manage its
own docket,” United States v. McCutcheon, 86 F.3d 187, 190 (11th Cir.
1996). In both circumstances, the court must weigh multiple casespecific considerations “with a view toward [the matter’s] efficient
and expedient resolution.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016).
Bottom line: The applicable abuse-of-discretion standard reflects
the indisputable fact that district courts are in the best position to
determine how best to proceed with the cases before them.
Now, to be sure, a district court’s discretion is neither unbounded nor unmoored. The Supreme Court has held that in deciding whether to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction
over a state-law claim, the court must account for several relevant
considerations—most notably, “judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522
U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350). And we’ve
also said that the “balance of factors” will usually “point toward declining to exercise” supplemental jurisdiction “after the federal
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 11 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 11
claims that supported its jurisdiction are dismissed.” Silas, 55 F.4th
at 866 (quoting Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7). Importantly, though,
that’s not “a mandatory rule to be applied inflexibly in all cases”—
just a “recogni[tion]” that the factors may well tilt against jurisdiction in that circumstance. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7. In all events,
district courts retain ample discretion to meet the needs of the cases
before them. So to repeat, supplemental jurisdiction is very much
a “doctrine of flexibility.” Silas, 55 F.4th at 866 (quoting Ameritox,
803 F.3d at 530).
B
When Mueller abandoned his two federal claims and the district court dismissed them, the court lost the sole basis for “original
jurisdiction” over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 3 Faced with seven
remaining state-law claims, the district court opted to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over several of them but to dismiss others.
Mueller argues at the outset that this “split exercise of jurisdiction”
was a per se abuse of discretion. Reply Br. of Appellant at 12. 4
3 As the district court correctly observed, see Summ. J. Order at 20, Dkt. No.
95, it couldn’t have exercised diversity jurisdiction over any of the state-law
claims because both Mueller and Burston were Georgia citizens. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (requiring complete diversity).
4 Mueller acknowledges that there might exist a few carveouts to a no-split
rule—an expired statute of limitations, a substantial sunk cost, or a state claim
that either falls with a federal claim or is patently frivolous on its face. See Br.
of Appellant at 21–22 (citing Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251–
52 (7th Cir. 1994)). But he contends that the false-arrest, false-imprisonment, USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 12 of 22
12 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
We find no basis for so rigid a rule in either statutory text or
existing precedent. Quite the opposite. On balance, § 1367’s language seems to contemplate (if not quite expressly authorize) the
very claim-by-claim assessment that the district court here made.
Our own precedent confirms that district courts enjoy ample leeway to make supplemental-jurisdiction determinations. And our
sister circuits that have addressed the issue head on have uniformly
held that district courts can act on a claim-by-claim basis.
First, and most importantly, there’s the text. Notably,
§ 1367 uses both singular and plural terminology in ways that we
think are telling. As already noted, subsection (a) states that except
as provided elsewhere—most significantly here, in subsection (c)—
in any case in which a district court has original jurisdiction, it shall
have supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims” (plural) that
are so related to the original-jurisdiction claims that “they” (plural)
form part of the same Article III case or controversy, and goes on
to clarify that such supplemental jurisdiction extends to “claims”
(plural) that require the joinder of additional parties. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a) (emphasis added). Clearly, therefore, subsection (a) envisions that a district court might well have supplemental jurisdiction
over multiple “claims.”
Subsection (c)’s phrasing—and in particular, its conspicuous
use of the singular term “claim” where it matters—strongly indiand malicious-prosecution claims are sufficiently debatable to survive that
they don’t qualify under any of those exceptions. See id. at 25–27.
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 13 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 13
cates that, in determining whether to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction, a court may act on a claim-by-claim basis. As
already noted, subsection (c) states that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “a claim” (singular)
in any of several instances—most notably, (1) where “the claim”
(singular) raises a novel state-law issue, (2) where “the claim” (singular) “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over
which the district court ha[d] original jurisdiction,” and (3) where
the district court has dismissed “all claims” (notably plural, harkening back to subsection (a)) over which it had original jurisdiction.
Id. § 1367(c).
The juxtaposition, we think, is both clear and instructive:
Subsection (a) contemplates that a district court may well have supplemental jurisdiction over multiple state-law “claims”; subsection
(c), in turn, empowers the court to decline to exercise that jurisdiction over any individual “claim.”
Second, there’s our own precedent. To be sure, we’ve never
squarely decided the question whether a district court may “split”
(to use Mueller’s term) its supplemental-jurisdiction determination—exercising jurisdiction over some state-law claims while declining jurisdiction over others. 5 As already noted, though, we
5 In one unpublished opinion, we held that the district court “did not abuse its
discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over [a plaintiff’s] breach of
contract claim but remanding the remaining state law claims.” Browning v.
Bay Radiology Associates, No. 23-13842, 2024 WL 3200472, at *4 (11th Cir. June
27, 2024).
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 14 of 22
14 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
have emphasized that supplemental jurisdiction is a “doctrine of
flexibility” and that in exercising its discretion over supplementaljurisdiction matters, the district court must “sensibly accommodate[] a range of concerns and values.” Silas, 55 F.4th at 866 (quoting Ameritox, 803 F.3d at 530). Imposing a rigid rule that requires a
district court to deal with state-law claims en masse, as an undifferentiated whole, would scuttle that flexibility. Under an all-or-nothing approach, a district court, having determined that the balance
of factors cut one way with respect to some claims and the other
way with respect to others, would then have to embark on one of
two undesirable courses: either dismiss claims it thinks it should
keep or keep claims it thinks it should dismiss. That’s the opposite
of the flexibility we have recognized and promised. 6
Finally, we note that in rejecting an all-or-nothing approach
and permitting district courts to make supplemental-jurisdiction
6 Again, to be fair, Mueller’s proposed rule allows for three carveouts that add
a bit of nuance. See supra note 4. But those carveouts can hardly be said to
confer additional discretion on the district court. If anything, they do the opposite. By asking us to determine, categorically, whether the district court has
already expended considerable resources on an issue or whether a given statelaw claim is largely decided by an already-resolved federal-law claim, Mueller
would replace a flexible balancing test with a rule-bound framework that permits appellate override when certain elements are present. Neither § 1367 nor
Wright, the Seventh Circuit case Mueller cites in support of this proposition,
demands such a rigid approach. If anything, the latter doubles down on using
a “balance of factors,” merely observing that in certain “unusual” cases (i.e.,
what Mueller takes to be carveouts) the factors “point” toward an exercise of
federal jurisdiction. Wright, 29 F.3d at 1251.
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 15 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 15
determinations on a claim-by-claim basis, we follow the unanimous consensus of our sister circuits that have addressed the issue.
See Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 1999); Southerland v. Hardaway Mgmt. Co., 41 F.3d 250, 256–57 (6th Cir. 1994);
Nielander v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 582 F.3d 1155, 1172 (10th Cir.
2009).
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that § 1367(c) does not entail any
per se prohibition that disables a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some claims while declining jurisdiction over others.
C
Mueller separately—and more narrowly—contends that in
the particular circumstances of this case, the district court abused
its discretion by exercising jurisdiction over some of his state-law
claims but not others. Mueller makes two arguments, which we
will address in turn.
1
First, Mueller says that the “balance” of the relevant “factors” required the district court to dismiss all the state-law claims.
Br. of Appellant at 17–19. We agree with Mueller that in making
its supplemental-jurisdiction determination the district court was
obliged to “consider and weigh . . . the values of judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.” Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S.
at 173 (quoting Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350). But giving the district court
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 16 of 22
16 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
the deference it’s due, we cannot agree that it abused its discretion
in so doing.
As a reminder, the district court retained jurisdiction over
Mueller’s false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims, but dismissed his assault and battery claims. Although
the district court didn’t explain its decision to retain jurisdiction
over the three claims it kept—more on that shortly—it disposed of
them in the same order in which it dismissed the federal claims. See
Summ. J. Order, Dkt. No. 95. In other words, the court retained
jurisdiction of those claims only as long as it took to reject them.
Reviewing the summary judgment order, we can’t say that
the district court abused its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over
three of Mueller’s state-law claims and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the other two. By that point, the district court had
reviewed the parties’ papers, and it seems to have had a clear sense
of which claims it thought it could easily resolve. Mueller’s falsearrest and false-imprisonment claims, for instance, fell on the
wrong side of the “line of demarcation” that Georgia law draws
“between cases where a party directly or indirectly urges a law enforcement official to begin criminal proceedings” and those “where
a party merely relays facts to an official who then makes an independent decision to arrest or prosecute.” Summ. J. Order at 14,
Dkt. No. 95 (quoting Smith, 765 S.E.2d at 523). Mueller was eventually arrested, to be sure, but only after he left the Walmart, following an independent encounter with law enforcement, and on a
charge related to an allegedly false police report. See id.
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 17 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 17
Mueller’s malicious-prosecution claim likewise failed, the
district court held, because it lacked an essential element. In particular, the court concluded that Mueller’s shoplifting charge,
which underlies his malicious-prosecution claim, was resolved as
part of a plea agreement and, therefore, that Mueller couldn’t show
that the shoplifting charge was “terminated favorably” to him, as
required by Georgia law. See id. at 14–19. (We’ll unpack the details
of the district court’s determination in that respect, which Mueller
challenges on the merits, in Part III.)
By contrast, the district court didn’t think the assault and
battery claims could be so easily decided. They were “bitterly dispute[d],” the court found, and they turned largely on Mueller’s
credibility as a witness, so it left them for resolution in state court.
See id. at 19–20.
Put simply, the district court decided the claims it thought it
could resolve quickly, and declined to decide those it thought it
couldn’t. The court concluded that the Georgia law governing the
false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims
was clear-cut in its articulation and application, and thus presented
no knotty comity issues arising out of a “novel or complex question
of state law” or significant expenditure of judicial resources. Ameritox, 803 F.3d at 540. The assault and battery claims, by contrast,
required fact-bound judgments based on a mosaic of contested evidence. Faced with those circumstances, the court exercised its
supplemental jurisdiction with respect to some but not all of
Mueller’s state-law claims. In so doing, the court was comfortably
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 18 of 22
18 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
within the “range of choices” available to it. Amergi, 611 F.3d at
1365 (quoting Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th
Cir. 2001)).
2
Second, and separately, Mueller contends that the district
court’s failure to explain its decision to retain jurisdiction over
some of his state-law claims but decline it over others was itself an
abuse of discretion. In short, we disagree. It is clear from the face
of the district court’s order—from its reasoning and disposition—
that it deemed some claims easy and others more difficult. Were
we to fault the court for not stating more explicitly what is abundantly clear, we’d be impermissibly interfering with the “wide discretion” it enjoys to manage this aspect of its docket. Cohill, 484
U.S. at 353. 7
7 Citing Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), Mueller also
argues that a federal court loses jurisdiction whenever “no federal hook remains because of the plaintiff’s decision to eliminate federal claims from the
lawsuit.” Reply Br. of Appellant at 4. That is incorrect. In Royal Canin, the
Supreme Court held only that when a plaintiff amends his complaint to drop
his federal claims, a federal court may not continue to adjudicate “the now
purely state-law suit.” 604 U.S. at 25. That’s not what happened here. Mueller
abandoned his federal claims in open court, and the district court accordingly
dismissed them. Whereas the amendment of a complaint implicates
§ 1367(a)’s non-discretionary grant of jurisdiction—namely, by eliminating
it—the mid-case dismissal of a claim implicates § 1367(c)(3) and “makes [] jurisdiction discretionary.” Id. at 33–34.
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 19 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 19
III
Separate and apart from the district court’s jurisdictional determination, Mueller contends that the court erred in granting
summary judgment on his malicious-prosecution claim.8 Mueller
insists that a reasonable jury could find that he was subjected to
malicious prosecution in connection with his shoplifting charge because, he says, there is a genuine dispute of material fact about
whether he obtained what we’ll call “favorable termination” of that
charge. Although it’s close, we agree with Mueller.
Under Georgia law, a malicious-prosecution claim requires
the plaintiff show that there was a “(1) prosecution for a criminal
offense; (2) instigated without probable cause; (3) with malice; (4)
under a valid warrant, accusation, or summons; (5) which has terminated favorably to the plaintiff; and (6) which has caused damage
to the plaintiff.” Sheffield, 839 S.E.2d at 301 (quoting McKissick v.
S.O.A., Inc., 684 S.E.2d 24, 27 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)). The dispute
8 “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to” the nonmoving
party. Bowen v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc., 882 F.3d 1358, 1362 (11th Cir. 2018)
(citation modified). Summary judgment may be granted only if “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact
exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party.’” Edmondson v. Velvet Lifestyles, LLC, 43 F.4th 1153, 1159
(11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)).
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 20 of 22
20 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
here is over the fifth element—“favorable termination.” Importantly for present purposes, the favorable-termination element
is satisfied—and a malicious-prosecution claim may proceed—
when the government “voluntarily abandon[s]” the charge in question, Laster v. Star Rental, Inc., 353 S.E.2d 37, 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987),
but not when the prosecution is “terminated because of a compromise and agreement of the parties,” Garner, 525 S.E.2d at 147.
Here, all agree that Mueller entered into a compromise on
the obstruction charge—in return for a plea, he received a 12-month probationary sentence. See Final Disposition, Dkt. No. 76-26. The government also entered a “[n]olle [p]ros” (essentially a
decision not to continue prosecution) on the shoplifting charge.
See id. The question for us is whether the government entered the
nolle pros because it voluntarily abandoned the shoplifting charge,
or because the nolle pros was part of a package deal that included
Mueller’s negotiated plea on the obstruction charge. If the government unilaterally abandoned the shoplifting charge, then perhaps
a malicious-prosecution claim could succeed. But if it was related
to Mueller’s plea agreement, then the claim fails ipso facto.
Although it’s a close call, when we examine the record in the
light most favorable to Mueller, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the decision to
drop the shoplifting charge was made independently of the plea
agreement. First, at his deposition, Mueller testified that at least
“as [he] understood it,” his plea agreement wasn’t related to the
district attorney’s decision to nolle pros the shoplifting charge. See
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 21 of 22
23-12854 Opinion of the Court 21
Mueller Dep. at 38, Dkt. No. 76-16. Second, and similarly, in a
sworn declaration, Mueller said that it was his “express understanding” that “the District Attorney’s Office unilaterally had decided
not to pursue the Felony shoplifting case at that time because they
were not prepared for trial which was scheduled the same
day . . . .” Mueller Decl. ¶ 18, Dkt. No. 82; see United States v. Stein,
881 F.3d 853, 858–59 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (“A non-conclusory
affidavit which complies with Rule 56 can create a genuine dispute
concerning an issue of material fact, even if it is self-serving and/or
uncorroborated.”). Third, neither at the plea hearing on Mueller’s
obstruction charge nor in the final disposition of that charge did the
trial judge document or mention any connection between
Mueller’s nolo plea and the government’s decision to drop the
shoplifting charge. See Tr. of Guilty Plea Hr’g at 1-9, Dkt. No. 76-25; Final Disposition, Dkt. No. 76-26. We think that this evidence,
taken together, is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude
that the nolle pros was independent of the plea agreement.
To be sure, Walmart has marshaled some evidence to the
contrary. At the plea hearing, for instance, Mueller’s counsel discussed the obstruction and shoplifting charges in tandem: “For just
. . . shoplifting and obstruction there’s a lot of pieces and parts to it,
but the State’s been pretty fair and wants to resolve it. We ask the
Court to accept the terms as negotiated . . . .” Tr. of Guilty Plea
Hr’g at 8, Dkt. No. 76-25. And even though it doesn’t expressly
link them, the final-disposition document does seem to cover both
charges—suggesting, at least, that both were resolved in the same
USCA11 Case: 23-12854 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2026 Page: 22 of 22
22 Opinion of the Court 23-12854
instrument at the same time. Each of these datapoints may well
persuade a jury that a deal existed.
At the summary-judgment stage, though, we needn’t—and
therefore don’t—weigh the evidence. We conclude only that there
is enough evidence on both sides to permit a reasonable jury to find
that Mueller has satisfied the favorable-termination element and,
in turn, made out a prima facie case for malicious prosecution. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
IV
The district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over the false-arrest, false-imprisonment,
and malicious-prosecution claims, while declining supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claims. But the district court
erred in granting summary judgment on Mueller’s malicious-prosecution claim. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s jurisdictional determination, but we REVERSE its grant of summary
judgment and REMAND for further proceedings.