Baysa v. Gualtieri et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge William F. Jung on 11/13/2018. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MAT S. BAYSA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-434-T-02SPF

ROBERT GUALTIERI in his official
capacity as Sheriff of the Pinellas County
Sheriff’s Office, CHARLES REDINGER,
individually and as Pinellas County Deputy,
STEPHANIE ARCHER, individually and
as Pinellas County Deputy Sheriff,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Upon due consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt.
74) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (75), the Court denies the motion. In
granting summary judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate
that Defendants had deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty or
property interest, and that even if he had, Defendants would have been entitled to
qualified immunity. (Dkt. 70). Defendants now move as prevailing parties to tax
attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).1

1

In any action to enforce the provisions of § 1983, “the court, in its
discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part

Defendants assert that they are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees
because Plaintiff’s case was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation,
citing to Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980), and Sullivan v. School Bd. of
Pinellas Cnty., 773 F.2d 1182, 1189-90 (11th Cir. 1985). They argue that “but for”
Plaintiff’s inexplicable change in testimony from his criminal trial to his
deposition in this case, the Court would have dismissed the case before it ever
proceeded to summary judgment.2
So as not to discourage plaintiffs from bringing civil rights lawsuits,
“[p]olicy concerns militate against awarding attorney’s fees to defendants in civil
rights cases.” Sayers v. Stewart Sleep Ctr., Inc., 140 F.3d 1351, 1353 (11th Cir.
1998). More than Plaintiff’s ultimate loss is required. Bruce v. City of
Gainesville, 177 F.3d 949, 951 (11th Cir. 1999). Although a close question, the
Court denies fees pursuant to the reasoning of Sayers, supra, and Perry v. Orange
Cnty., 341 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1205 (M.D. Fla. 2004).

of its costs . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
2

The Court found that Plaintiff’s testimony differed substantially and
materially from his criminal trial. (Dkt. 70). At trial, he made no mention of
being punched, kicked, or choked, but at his deposition he recalled quite the
opposite.
-2-

ACCORDINGLY, Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. 74) is
denied.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on November 13, 2018.

s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-3-