FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 23, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10335 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 8 2 8 - CV- DLG M O N T G O M E R Y B L A I R S I B L E Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A Y L E V Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 23, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ont gom e ry B l a i rS i bl e y , a n a tt orne y pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the gr a nt2

of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s t o J a y L e vy , the de f e nda nt , w hi c h w e r e a w a r de d pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 1988, be c a us e the c om pl a i nttha tS i bl e y br oughta ga i ns tL e vy , unde r42 U . S . C . §§ 1983, 1985( 2) , w a s f r i vol ous . T he s ubs t a nc e of the unde r l y i ng c om pl a i ntw a s tha tS i bl e y s a w , butdi d nothe a r , the s ubs t a nc e of ac onve r s a t i on betw ee n L evy a nd tw o F l ori da appel l at e c ou rtj ud ges i n a l ou ng e duri ng a c ou rt r e c e s s , a nd, the c onve r s a t i on vi ol a t e d S i bl e y ’ s r i ght s unde r§§ 1983, 1985( 2) . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t L e v y w a s e n title d to a tto rn e y ’s f e e s b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) S ib le y d id n o tan d co u l d n o test ab l i sh a p ri m a faci e act i o n u n d er ei th er sect i o n ; (2 ) h i s case w a s di s m i s s e d be f

or e tr i a l ; a nd ( 3) i tw a s w i thoutm e r i torf ounda t i on. S ib le y a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t h is c om pl a i ntw a s f

r i vol ous , a nd, a ddi t i ona l l y , be c a us e he w a s nota l l ow e d t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i ntt o r e s pond t o the de f i c i e nc i e s , the r e w a s avi ol a t i on of hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s a nd a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s im p o s itio n o f a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s a n d c o s ts pur s ua ntt o § 1988 f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. B a ke rv. A l de rm a n, 158 F . 3d 516, 521 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . “ ‘ A n abus e of di s c r e t i on oc c ur s i f

the j udge f

a i l s t o appl y the pr ope rl e ga l s t a nda r d ort o f ol l ow pr ope rpr oc e dur e s i n m a ki ng the de t e rm i na t i on, orba s e s a n a w a r d upon f i ndi ngs of

f a c ttha ta r e c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ’ ” A C L U v. B a rne s , 168 F . 3d 423, 427 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng I n r e H i l l s bor ough H ol di ngs3

C orp. , 12 7 F . 3d 13 98 , 14 01 (11th C i r. 19 97 )) . U nd er§ 1 98 8, a pre vai l i ng defe nd anti s e nt i t l ed t o rec ov eratt orney’ s f ee s i f

“ the pl ai nt i ff

' s a ct i on w as fr i vo l ou s, un re as on abl e, or w i tho utfoun dat i on , even th o u g h n o tb r o u g h ti n s u b j e c t i v e b a d f

a i th . ” Ch r i s t i a n s b u r g G a rme n tCo . v . EEO C, 434 U . S . 412, 421, 98 S . C t . 694, 700, 54 L . E d. 2d 648 ( 1978) . “ I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the ras ui ti s f

r i vol ous , ‘ adi s tr i c tc our tm us tf oc us on the que s t i on w he the rthe c a s e i s s o l a c ki ng i n a r guabl e m e r i ta s t o be gr oundl e s s orw i thoutf ounda t i on r a the rtha n w he the rthe c l a i m w a s ul t i m a t e l y s uc c e s s f ul . ’ ” S ul l i va n v. S c h. B d. of P in e lla s C o u n ty , 7 7 3 F .2 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he thr e e f

a c t or s w e ha ve not e d t o be us e d i n de t e rm i ni ng i f ac l a i m w a s f

r i vol ous a r e : “ ( 1) w he the rthe pl a i nt i f f e s t abl i s he d apr i m af

a c i e c a s e ; ( 2) w he the rthe de f e nda ntof

f e r e d t o s e tt l e ; a nd ( 3) w he the rthe tr i a l c our tdi s m i s s e d the c a s e pr i or t o tri al or hel d a ful l -bl ow n tri al on the m er i t s. ” I d. T ypi ca l l y, ca se s thatar e f r iv o lo u s h a v e b e e n d is m is s e d b e f o r e tr ia l, o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o ro n am o tio n to di s m i s s . I d. S ec t i on 19 83 cr ea t es a c i vi l re m edy a gai nstany per son w ho depri ves a no ther of a c on st i tut i on al or fe dera l ri gh tun der c ol or of st at e l aw . 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. In order t o p re vai l i n a § 1 98 3 act i on , a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow thathe w as depri ved o f a f e de r a l r i ghtby ape r s on a c t i ng “ unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . ” G r i f

f i n v. C i ty of4

O pa-L ocka, 26 1 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). “ O nl y i n rar e c i rc um st ance s c a n apr i va t e pa r ty be vi e w e d a s a' s t a t e a c t or' f or§ 1983 purpos e s . ” H a rve y v. H a rv e y , 9 4 9 F .2 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . S e c tio n 1 9 8 5 ( 2 ) c r e a te s ap r iv a te c a us e of a c t i on a ga i ns ta ny tw o orm or e pe opl e w ho c ons pi r e t o ( 1) thr e a t e n, i nt i m i da t e , orf

or c e f ul l y de t e ra ny pa r ty orw i tne s s f r om t e s t i f

y i ng truthf

ul l y or a tt e ndi ng c our t , ( 2) i nj ur e aw i tne s s orpa r ty f ora tt e ndi ng c our tort e s t i f y i ng, ( 3) i nf l ue nc e the ve r di c t , or( 4) hi nde rthe c our s e of j us t i c e i n a ny m a nne rw i th the in te n t o rd e p r iv in g ac itiz e n o f th e e q u a l p r o te c tio n o f

th e la w . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1985( 2) . A § 1985 c l a i m r e qui r e s “ s om e r a c i a l , orpe rhaps othe rw i s e c l a s s - ba s e d, i nv i di ou sl y di sc ri m i nat ory a ni m us behi nd the conspi ra t ors’ ac t i on . ” U ni t ed Br o th e rh o o d o f

Ca rp e n t e r s & J o i n e r s o f A me r i c a , Lo c a l 6 1 0 v . Sc o tt , 4 6 3 U . S. 82 5, 83 5, 10 3 S . C t . 33 52 , 33 59 , 77 L . E d. 2d 10 49 (198 3); C hi l dree , 92 F . 3d at 1 1 4 7 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in g r a n tin g a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a s it prop er l y use d the S ul l i van fri vo l i ty t es tand d et erm i ned thatS i bl ey ’ s c l ai m w as m e r i t l e s s be c a us e S i bl e y f a i l e d t o s t a t e apr i m af

a c i e c a s e unde r42 U . S . C . §§ 1983, 19 85 (2). A s t o h i s other a rgum ent s – the deni al of du e proces s the di stri ctcourt abuse of di sc re t i on by denyi ng hi s c l ai m w i tho utal l ow i ng hi m t o am end – S i bl ey i s a tt em pt i ng t o app ea l the un derl yi ng j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s c om pl ai nt , w hi ch5

w e c a n n o t h e a r , a s th a t th e ap p e a l h a s b e e n d is m is s e d f o raf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te . AF F I RME D.