Ashley Anna Cooper’s case began after officers from the Wheeling Police Department investigated a battery complaint on December 17, 2021. The officers later obtained an arrest warrant for the person identified as Ashley Cooper. The warrant remained active for nearly a year.
On November 13, 2022, officers from the City of McMechen responded to an unrelated domestic violence incident at Cooper’s residence. During that response, the officers arrested Cooper under the active warrant tied to the December 2021 battery complaint. The warrant named Ashley Cooper, and Cooper’s name was Ashley Anna Cooper.
The criminal charge did not proceed after the initial hearing. On January 23, 2023, the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney dismissed the charge after determining that the actual person involved in the battery complaint was Ashley Marie Cooper, not Ashley Anna Cooper.
On December 16, 2024, Cooper filed a civil action against the City of Wheeling, Officer Cody McCormick, and Officer Ben Young. The lawsuit brought one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cooper stated that the officers arrested her without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The City of Wheeling, Officer McCormick, and Officer Young responded with a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. The motion raised several issues. It stated that the complaint was unclear as to whether Cooper brought a wrongful arrest claim, a malicious prosecution claim, or both. It also stated that a wrongful arrest claim would be untimely under a one-year limitations period.
The motion also addressed the City of Wheeling. It stated that Cooper had not plausibly pleaded a claim against the City because a municipality could not be held liable under § 1983 based only on the actions of its employees. The motion further stated that, if Cooper pursued a malicious prosecution claim, she had not pleaded enough facts to support it. At that stage, the City and officers agreed that a malicious prosecution claim in West Virginia was governed by a two-year statute of limitations.
The district court granted the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2025. It first determined that Cooper’s complaint brought a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim. The court then applied West Virginia’s one-year statute of limitations under West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(c).
The court treated Cooper’s claim as having accrued on January 23, 2023, when the criminal charge was dismissed. Because Cooper filed her civil complaint on December 16, 2024, the district court determined that the filing occurred approximately twenty-three months after accrual. Applying the one-year limitations period, the district court dismissed the case as untimely.
Cooper appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
On appeal, Cooper challenged the statute of limitations used by the district court. She stated that the two-year limitations period under West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(b) applied, rather than the one-year period under § 55-2-12(c).
The appellate court reviewed the statute of limitations issue as a question of law. It also reviewed the dismissal of the complaint under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, accepting the factual allegations as true and viewing them in Cooper’s favor.
The court explained that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations. Because of that, courts borrow the appropriate state statute of limitations. The court reviewed United States Supreme Court decisions holding that § 1983 claims are treated as personal injury actions for limitations purposes. Where a state has more than one limitations period for personal injury actions, courts must use the state’s general or residual personal injury limitations period rather than a limitations period tied to a specific tort.
West Virginia Code § 55-2-12 contains separate timing provisions. Subsection (b) provides a two-year period for damages for personal injuries. Subsection (c) provides a one-year period for certain other personal actions that would not have survived at common law if a party died.
The appellate court reviewed prior decisions from the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Those decisions treated § 1983 claims arising in West Virginia as personal injury actions governed by the two-year period in § 55-2-12(b). The court noted that some federal district courts in West Virginia had applied a one-year period to § 1983 malicious prosecution claims by looking to state-law malicious prosecution limitations rules. The court found that approach inconsistent with binding precedent because § 1983 claims used the general personal injury limitations period, not a tort-specific limitations period.
The court also addressed reliance on West Virginia malicious prosecution cases applying a one-year period to state-law malicious prosecution claims. It explained that those cases did not control the limitations period for a federal § 1983 claim. The court stated that using different state limitations periods for different § 1983 claims would conflict with the Supreme Court’s rule requiring uniform use of the general personal injury limitations period.
The appellate court determined that Cooper’s § 1983 malicious prosecution claim was governed by the two-year limitations period in West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(b). The parties did not dispute that the claim accrued on January 23, 2023, when the criminal case ended in Cooper’s favor.
Cooper filed the civil complaint on December 16, 2024. Under the two-year limitations period, the filing occurred before the deadline expired. The appellate court found that the district court erred when it dismissed the malicious prosecution claim as time-barred.
The appellate court then reviewed the separate issue concerning Cooper’s claim against the City of Wheeling. Although the district court dismissed the case on limitations grounds, the appellate court considered whether the complaint stated a claim against the City.
The court explained that municipalities may be sued under § 1983, but municipal liability requires more than a claim based on employee conduct. To hold a municipality liable, a complaint must allege an official policy or custom that was fairly attributable to the municipality and that caused the alleged violation of rights.
Cooper’s complaint did not include allegations identifying a City of Wheeling policy or custom. The complaint identified the City as a municipality in the parties section, but did not plead facts connecting a municipal policy or custom to the alleged Fourth Amendment violation. The appellate court found that Cooper had not plausibly pleaded a § 1983 claim against the City.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the City of Wheeling. It reversed the dismissal of Cooper’s § 1983 malicious prosecution claim against the officers on statute-of-limitations grounds and remanded the case for further proceedings.
If you are dealing with injuries or harm involving false detention, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or another personal injury matter listed on our personal injury page, our team handles claims involving responsible parties, insurance companies, evidence collection, and claims for compensation. You can contact us to discuss your situation and learn how our team can assist.