Sharrar, 128 F.3d at 817-18 (stating that, in a § 1983 action, the key element of an unlawful arrest cause of action is that the law enforcement agent arrested the plaintiff without probable cause). Similarly, because “an arrest based on probable cause [can]not become the source of a [§ 1983] claim for false imprisonment!,]” I conclude that the Officer Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Luthe’s false imprisonment claim, as well. Groman, 47 F.3d at 636. B. Malicious Prosecution In Count III of the Complaint, Luthe alleges a claim for malicious prosecution. Generally, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated based on probable cause, a civil rights plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for malicious prosecution. See Montgomery v. DeSimone, 159 F.3d 120, 124 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As noted above, at the time the Officer
holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under  1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her holding the same for malicious prosecution holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim