Dawn Green v. city of southfield et al
Filing
27
ORDER Denying 24 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dawn Green,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-13030
City of Southfield, et al.,
Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff Dawn Green was involved in an automobile accident in
Southfield, Michigan. She later filed a lawsuit on October 3, 2015 (Case No. 15-13479), under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, asserting that officers of the Southfield Police
Department violated her constitutional rights, and conspired to do so, in the manner in which
they investigated the accident. This action, filed on September 14, 2017, is the second action
filed by Plaintiff concerning that same accident.
In an Opinion & Order issued on March 7, 2018, this Court granted a Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants, and dismissed this action with prejudice. (D.E. No. 20).
Thereafter, on April 4, 2018, the Southfield Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, arguing that Plaintiff’s cause of action against them was frivolous,
unreasonable, and without foundation. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
The Court concludes that oral argument would not aid the decisional process and
therefore orders that the motion shall be decided without oral argument. For the reasons set forth
1
below, the Court shall deny the motion.
42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides ‘[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section . . . 1983, 1985 and 1986 of this title,” the “court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party” a “reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). As
Defendants’ motion acknowledges, Defendants bear the burden of establishing entitlement to an
award under § 1988.
“An award of attorney fees against a losing plaintiff in a civil rights action ‘is an extreme
sanction, and must be limited to truly egregious cases of misconduct.’” Riddle v. Egensperger,
266 F.3d 542m 547 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Jones v. Continental Corp., 789 F.2d 1225, 1232
(6th Cir. 1986)). Prevailing Defendants such as the Southfield Defendants should only recover if
the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not
brought in subjective bad faith. Wayne v. Village of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 530 (6th Cir. 1994).
Furthermore, “[t]he Supreme Court has instructed district courts considering prevailing
defendants’ applications for attorney fees to ‘resist the understandable temptation to engage in
post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action
must have been unreasonable or without foundation.’ Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421–22, 98
S.Ct. at 700. The decision is committed to the discretion of the trial judge, and is reviewed only
for abuse of discretion. Tarter, 742 F.2d at 986.” Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530.
While this Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Southfield Defendants, granting their
Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this action with prejudice, this Court concludes that this is not
an egregious case that warrants the extreme sanction of an attorney fee award under § 1988.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Southfield Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
2
under § 1988 is DENIED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: July 17, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July
17, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?