Opinion
1:04-CV-1127 (LEK/DRH).
July 17, 2008
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant Sara Maliha's ("Defendant Maliha") Motion for attorney's fees, filed on March 14, 2007, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Dkt. No. 44.
I. Background
II. Discussion
42 U.S.C. § 1983 42 U.S.C. § 1988Panetta v. Crowley460 F.3d 388399Id. Hughes v. Rowe449 US 515-16Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC 434 US 412422Rounseville v. Zahl13 F.3d 625632Santiago v. Victim Servs. Agency of Metro. Assistance Corp.753 F.2d 219221Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC434 U.S. 412418
To establish Defendant Maliha's liability under Section 1983, Plaintiff needed to prove that she acted under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff based his claim against Defendant Maliha on a theory of conspiracy. Compl. ¶ 38 (Dkt. No. 1). To prove conspiracy under Section 1983, Plaintiff needed to demonstrate an agreement between Defendant Maliha and Defendant Frank Faluotico ("Defendant Faluotico") and an overt act done in the furtherance of causing damages to Plaintiff. Martinez v. Golden, 499 F.Supp.2d 561, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). As courts have noted, though, conspiracies are by nature secretive operations that can rarely be proven by direct evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 890 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir. 1992).
Although Plaintiff did not have direct evidence to support his claim of collaborative activity, circumstantial evidence at the time of filing could have supported the existence of a conspiracy between Defendant Maliha and Defendant Faluotico. When Officer Sperath first spoke with Defendant Maliha following the June 19, 2002 incident, she refused to press charges against Plaintiff. Defendant Maliha then called Defendant Faluotico, a detective with the Ulster County Sheriff's Department, who subsequently spoke with Officer Sperath regarding the incident. After that conversation, Officer Sperath returned to the Maliha residence and arrested Plaintiff. In light of this understandably suspicious sequence of events, at least from Plaintiff's perspective, Plaintiff's conspiracy claim, though perhaps very weak, was not frivolous.
Additionally, to succeed on his Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff needed to prove a deprivation of a constitutional right.Martinez, 499 F.Supp. at 569. Plaintiff argued that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of illegal search and seizure when they caused his allegedly false arrest. Compl. ¶ 44 (Dkt. No. 1). To prevail on his claim of false arrest, Plaintiff needed to prove that he was arrested without probable cause. Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 1995). Because Office Sperath initially determined that there was no cause to arrest Plaintiff, Plaintiff's false arrest argument, although not a winning one, was not frivolous.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim was not so "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless" as to justify an award of Defendant Maliha's attorney's fees under Section 1988. Contra Dangler on Behalf of Dangler v. Yorktown Cent. Sch., 777 F.Supp. 1175 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (awarding attorney's fees to defendant in an action challenging National Honor Society Committee's unanimous, merit-based decision to deny admission to Plaintiff's son).
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant Maliha's Motion for attorney's fees (Dkt. No. 44) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties.