Sudduth v. Vasquez et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/26/2009. (rban, )

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TH

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division
ROY SUDDUTH, )

Plaintiff,

)
)

)
V.
BRENDA VASQUEZ, et al^,

)

l:08cvll06

(LMB/TCB)

)
)

Defendants.

)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court

is

the pro se plaintiff's Motion for Leave
[2]. A litigant may commence an

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

action in federal court in forma pauperis

if he files an

affidavit,

in good faith,
See

stating that he
18 U.S.C. §

is unable to pay the
Nothing in the

costs of the lawsuit.

1915(a).

record suggests that plaintiff's affidavit

is inaccurate or

submitted in bad faith.
GRANTED.

Accordingly,

the application will be

However,

a court

should dismiss an action filed in forma

pauperis if

the action is

"i)

frivolous or malicious;

ii)

fails
seeks

to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

or iii)

from such

relief."

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

Of course,

pleadings filed
and will not be
Erickson

by a pro se party must be
held to the v. Pardus.

"liberally construed"

same standards as those filed by lawyers. 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007)

(internal quotations and

citations omitted).

Nevertheless,

whether the complaint states a

claim on which relief may be granted

is determined by

"the

familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

12(b)(6)."
1998).

Sumner v.

Tucker.

9

F.

Supp.

2d 641,

642

(E.D.

Va.

Thus,

a court must accept all of

the complaint's wellfavorable to

pleaded allegations and view them in a light most

the plaintiff.

Smith v.

Svdnor.

184

F.3d 356,

361

(4th Cir.

1999).

To survive a 12(b)(6)
however,

motion to dismiss for failure to
state "enough facts to

state a claim,

a plaintiff must

state a claim to relief that
Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv.

is plausible on its
S. Ct. 1955, 1974

face."
{2007)

Bell
(internal

127

citations omitted).
I. Discussion

Plaintiff describes himself as an African-American Muslim male who is disabled as a result of suffering from diabetes has left him legally blind. In his 113 paragraph complaint, they have that

plaintiff has sued 49 defendants,

alleging that

violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act

("ADA"),

42 U.S.C.

§

12132;

§

504 of the § 794(a);

Rehabilitation Act

("Rehabilitation Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 3061,

29 U.S.C.

the Fair Housing Act,

et seq.;

and the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's

He seeks

injunctive and declaratory relief, fees, and costs. Plaintiff's allegations

are wide-ranging and appear to arise out of several different

transactions with the various defendants,

all

involving

plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the conditions

in Section 8

housing administered by some of the defendants.

Plaintiff

complains that his apartment was roach-infested and that when he
asked to be moved to a different building, some of the defendants

refused to place him in the building he wanted although they

offered him space in a different building.

He

sues various City

of Alexandria officials and employees for how they handled his complaints about the housing situation. He also sues certain

legal services personnel who he apparently consulted for legal

assistance in pursuing his housing problems,

and he sues judges

and staff of the Alexandria General District Court because they

did not let him proceed in forma pauperis and had him evicted
from the courthouse.

Because plaintiff named so many different defendants and

raised so many different issues,

his complaint will be analyzed

by each group of defendants rather than by count.
A. Crestview Commons Defendants1

Plaintiff claims that the Crestview Commons Defendants

violated his rights under the Fair Housing Act,

the ADA,

the

Carmen Bonilla, Robert C. Kettler, Marcus Mitchell, Zarrick Veney, Hernando Rodriguez, Glen White, Crestview Commons doing

1 The nine Crestview Commons Defendants are Brenda Vasquez,

business as Fields of Landmark, and KSI Management Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants are employed by
KSI Management Inc.

Rehabilitation Act,

and the Equal

Protection Clause of

the

Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiff

alleges

that

the defendants violated the

Fair

Housing Act by subjecting him to unsafe and unhealthy living conditions,
choice,

refusing to move him to the apartment
numerous

complex of his
about the or

and ignoring his

written complaints of his race,

condition of his

apartment,

on account

religion,

disability.

Compl.

HH 30,
that
the

43-44.

Section 3604 of the Fair
"[t]o discriminate
or privileges of religion, or

Housing Act provides
against any person sale or rental" in

it is unlawful
terms,

conditions, race,

because of

a person's

handicap.

See 42 U.S.C.

§

3604

(b)&(£).

A plaintiff may

demonstrate a prima
the

facie case of

discrimination by showing that

challenged practice was motivated by a discriminatory purpose Betsey v. Turtle Creek Assocs..

or had a discriminatory impact. 736 F.2d 983, 986 (4th Cir.

1984).

Although plaintiff has Muslim, and disabled, he has

alleged that he

is African-American,

not alleged facts to support his

claim that

the actions of

the

Crestview Commons Defendants were motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a disparate impact. Plaintiff's conclusory

allegations
support,
Civ. P.

of

discriminatory conduct,

without any factual
to Fed. R.

cannot withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant
12(b)(6). See Twomblv. 127 S. Ct. at 1974.

Accordingly,

the
§

claims will be dismissed pursuant to 28
for failure to state

U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

a claim.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Crestview Commons Defendants

violated his rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act byexcluding him from their services, programs, and activities and which

failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations,
appear to consist of having an apartment

"free from all roaches

and all other vermin."

Compl.

U 98.

Plaintiff alleges that

these defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to

administer their services to him in a setting appropriate for his needs.
The

Compl.

H 104.

Fourth Circuit applies a similar analysis to claims Baird v. Rose, 192

under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. F.3d 462, 468 (4th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff

seeking relief under

either statute must allege that 1)

he has a disability,

2)

he is

otherwise qualified to receive the benefits services, programs, or activities, and 3)

of the public

he was denied the on the basis

benefits of such services, of his disability.
George Mason Univ.. F.3d at 468.

programs,

or activities, Rectors
(4th Cir. in that

See Constantine v.
411 F.3d 474, 498

& Visitors of
2005); Baird. 192 to

The Acts

differ somewhat

the ADA applies

programs

and services of a public entity,

and a plaintiff has

the

burden of showing that his disability

"played a motivating role"

in the challenged action.

Baird.

192

F.3d at 468-69.
that receive

The

Rehabilitation Act applies to programs financial assistance,

federal the

and a plaintiff must show that
"solely by reason of" his

discrimination occurred

disability.

Id.

In the instant complaint,

plaintiff does not specify which

service,

program,

or activity the Crestview Commons Defendants

denied him the benefits of because of his disability.
he states that these defendants "illegally excludfed]

Instead,
this

disabled Plaintiff from all of their services,

programs,

and

activities."

Compl.

H 98.

However,

it appears from the

complaint that plaintiff was able to lease an apartment from the

Crestview Commons Defendants from December 2006 through September

2007.

Compl.

H 26.

If plaintiff's claim is based on the
decision not to move him into a new
to support the allegation

Crestview Commons Defendants'
apartment, he has

not pled any facts

that his disability was a motivating factor or the sole reason
for the Crestview Commons Defendants' decision not to move him.

Therefore,

plaintiff has

failed to state a claim under either the
and these claims will be dismissed

ADA or the Rehabilitation Act,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Plaintiff's allegations under the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment also fail because the Fourteenth

Amendment only imposes limits on state action and does not apply
to conduct of private parties, such as these defendants. See

Brentwood Acad. 288, 295 (2001).

v.

Term.

Secondary Sch.

Athletic Ass'n.

531 U.S.

State action exists if there is such a "close

nexus between the State and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State

itself."

See id.

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a nexus between the
Crestview Commons Defendants and the state to support a finding

that the Crestview Common Defendants were engaged in state action
for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, his

§ 1983 claims for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment will be
dismissed for B. failure to state a claim.

Redevelopment Defendants2

Plaintiff alleges that the Redevelopment Defendants violated
his rights under the Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, the

and the Equal Protection Clause of the His factual allegations against these

Fourteenth Amendment.

defendants are identical Commons Defendants.

to those alleged against

the Crestview he has

Thus,

for the reasons stated above,

failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act,
the Rehabilitation Act,

the ADA,

or

and these claims will be dismissed.

Plaintiff has also brought claims against the Redevelopment
Defendants under § 1983 for violations of his Fourteenth

Amendment rights.

Here,

the state action requirement is met

because plaintiff has sued the Alexandria Redevelopment and

Elijah Johnson, Terrence D. Langford, Cynthia Thompson, Kimberly Wade, TaLori Johnson, Roy Triese, William D. Euille, the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the City of Alexandria. Plaintiff states that the individual defendants are employed by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority
and the City of Alexandria.

2 The ten Redevelopment Defendants are William Dearman,

Housing Authority and the City of Alexandria and alleges of the individual defendants

that all these

in this group are employees of 531 U.S. at 295. To state a

entities.

See Brentwood Acad.. 1983,

claim under § of his
law.

a plaintiff must allege

that he was deprived

federal rights by a person acting under the color of state
See, e.g.. West v. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To make

out an equal protection claim, has

a plaintiff must allege that

"he

been treated differently from others with whom he is the unequal treatment was the result Morrison v. Although plaintiff and disabled, treated the he has

similarly situated and that of

intentional or purposeful discrimination." 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001).

Garraghtv.

alleges that he is African-American, failed to allege any facts

Muslim,

showing that he was

differently from others who are

similarly situated or that

Redevelopment Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination.
U.S.C. §

or purposeful

This claim will also be dismissed pursuant to 28
for failure to state
r

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

a claim.

C.
Next,

Foxwoods Defendants3
plaintiff alleges that the Foxwoods Defendants the ADA, the

violated his

rights under the Fair Housing Act,

Rehabilitation Act,

and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts

Fourteenth Amendment.

3 The five Foxwoods Defendants are Ameurfina Braga,

Marcelo

Jordan, Evelyn Gleason, Harold Mangold, and Scott Management Inc. Plaintiff states that all of the individual Foxwood Defendants are employed by Scott Management Inc.
8

supporting his claim that he was discriminated against because of

his religion or disability or that he was denied the benefits of
the Foxwoods Defendants' services, programs, or activities, on

the basis of his disability.
Betsey. 736 P.2d at 986.

See Constantine.
his

411 F.3d at 498;
Fair

Therefore,

claims under the

Housing Act for discrimination on the basis of his religion and disability and his claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation
Act must be dismissed.

Plaintiff's Fair Housing Act claim alleging race

discrimination also fails. "in the terms, conditions,

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination or privileges of sale or rental" based
or handicap. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604

on a person's race,

religion,

(b)&(f).

A plaintiff may demonstrate a prima facie case of
the challenged practice was

discrimination by showing that

motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a discriminatory impact. Betsey. 736 F.2d at 986. Plaintiff claims that the

Foxwoods Defendants would not accept his Section 8 Housing Voucher because of his race. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged and asked

that he called Ameurfina Braga on January 6,

2007

whether apartments were available at the Foxwood Place

Apartments.

Compl.

t 50.

Plaintiff states that Braga told him

in that conversation that Foxwood Place Apartments accepted
Section 8 Housing Vouchers. Compl. H 51. However, plaintiff

claims that when he arrived to view an apartment,

Braga and

Marcelo Jordan realized he was African-American and told him they

did not accept Section 8

Housing Vouchers and did not have two

bedroom apartments available.
asserts that on January 9,

Compl.
he

U 52.

Plaintiff further
the

2007,

called Evelyn Gleason, Incorporated, and she

property manager for Scott Management

confirmed that she would not accept a Section 8 Voucher for the
Foxwood Place Apartments, but would accept a voucher for their

low income project in Falls Church,
Even accepting its

Virginia.

Compl.

UH 55-57.

responsibility to construe pro

se complaints

liberally,
facts

the Court finds

that plaintiff has not pled sufficient
Foxwoods Defendants'

to support his

allegation that the

decision not to show or rent an apartment at the Foxwood Place
Apartments was motivated by race discrimination rather than financial ineligibility. In addition, plaintiff failed to allege

any specific conduct as to Harold Mangold,

so the claims against

him will be dismissed for this additional reason.
Plaintiff also sues these defendants under § 1983 for

violations of his rights under the Equal However, here,

Protection Clause. the

as with the Crestview Commons Defendants,

plaintiff has state and the

failed to plead a sufficient nexus between the Foxwoods Defendants to support a finding that the

Foxwoods Defendants were engaged in state action.

Therefore,

these claims will also be dismissed.
U.S. at 295.

See Brentwood Acad.,

531

10

D.

Legal Services Defendants4

Plaintiff alleges that the Legal Service Defendants violated his rights under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal in response

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when, to his request for legal assistance,
legal forms to fill out,

they merely gave him various

but refused to provide him with Compl.

assistance or reasonable help in filling out the forms.

If 60-66.

Title II of the ADA "forbids public entities .
services,

.
or

.

from excluding disabled persons from programs,
benefits 'by reason of their disabilities."

See Constantine.

411 F.3d at 4 88.

A public entity is statutorily defined as state
agencies, and

or local governments and their departments,

instrumentalities.

42 U.S.C.

§ 12131(1).

Plaintiff has failed

to allege that Legal Services of Northern Virginia is a public

entity as defined by the ADA,

and,

thus,

his claims under ADA for failure

will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
to state a claim.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

Next,

plaintiff alleges that the Legal Services Defendants

violated his rights under the Rehabilitation Act,
program or activity that receives federal funds

which forbids a

from denying the

benefits of the program to a disabled person "solely by the

4 The four Legal Service Defendants are John P. Ellis, Richard V. Minionis, Nicole M. Bacon, and Legal Services of Northern Virginia. Plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants are employed by Legal Services of Northern Virginia. Plaintiff also refers to these defendants as the Legal Aid
Defendants. See Compl. f 60.

11

reason of

...

his basis"

of his disability.

See 29 U.S.C.

§

794(a).

Here,

plaintiff alleges that the Legal Services

Defendants receive federal funds and refused to provide him with

meaningful assistance because of his race,

religion,

or

disability.

Compl.

tfl 63,

101.

However,

plaintiff has not

clearly alleged that he was excluded from receiving the benefits
of the Legal Services Defendants' programs or services solely

because of his disability.

Although plaintiff states that he was

unable to fill out the legal forms given to him by these

defendants because they would not assist him or provide
reasonable accommodations for him, he does not allege that his

inability to fill out the forms was the sole reason,
of the reason,

or any part

that the Legal Services Defendants declined to

assist him with his legal matters.
Therefore,

See Compl.

HI 60-66.

he has failed to state a claim under the

Rehabilitation Act.

Moreover,

any claims against the individual

defendants must be dismissed because individuals may not be held

liable under the Rehabilitation Act.
Calloway v.

See 29 U.S.C.
89 F.

§ 794(a);
Supp. 2d

Boro of Glassboro Dep't of Police.

543,

557

(D.N.J.

2000)

(collecting cases finding no individual

liability under the Rehabilitation Act).

Plaintiff also alleges that the Legal Service Defendants
violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. As discussed above, the Fourteenth

Amendment only imposes limits on state action and does not apply

12

to conduct of private parties.

See Brentwood Acad..

531 U.S.

at

295.

Plaintiff has not alleged a sufficient nexus between the

Legal Services Defendants and the state to support a finding that
the conduct of the Legal Service Defendants constitutes state

action.
to 28

See id.

Thus,

these claims will be dismissed pursuant
for failure to state a claim.

U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B){ii)

E.

General District Court Defendants5
that the General District Court rights under the ADA,

Plaintiff also alleges Defendants

(UGDC Defendants")

violated his

the Rehabilitation Act,
Fourteenth Amendment.

and the Equal Protection Clause of the

Plaintiff's claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act arise from incidents that occurred at the Alexandria General

District Court.

Compl.

H 67.

To state a claim under the ADA or
that he is

the Rehabilitation Act, disabled,
public

a plaintiff must allege

was otherwise eligible to receive
program or activity, but was

the benefits of a
excluded from

service,

participation in the programs,

service,

or activity due to his

5 The seven General District Court Defendants are Hope
Mayfield,
Moore,

Barbara Delander,
Donald M.

Margaret N.
Jr.,

French,

Hon.

Becky J.

Hon.

Haddock,

the Alexandria Sheriff's

Department, and the Alexandria, Virginia General District Court. Plaintiff states that the individual employees are employed by the City of Alexandria and the Alexandria, Virginia General District Court. These defendants include two sitting General District Court judges, Moore and Haddock, against whom plaintiff
has alleged no specific conduct, and who, on this record would be immune from suit. See Mireles v. Waco. 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman. 435 U.S. 349, 360-64 (1978).
13

disability.
claims

See Constantine.

411 F.3d at 498.
legal

Here,

plaintiff

that he attempted to

file

forms with two court

clerks,

defendants Hope Mayfield and Barbara Delander,

but they

rejected his forms.

Compl.

UH 67-69.

He then alleges that these
but refused

two defendants gave him legal forms

with small print,

to provide him with reasonable accommodations

to allow him to

fill out the forms.
he was unable

Compl.

f 71.
forms

Plaintiff does not allege that
and file his lawsuit because

to complete

the

of
as

the defendants'

failure

to provide reasonable accommodations,
the ADA or the

he must do in order

to state a claim under

Rehabilitation Act.
forms were

Instead,

plaintiff alleges
to file his

that after his
lawsuit because

completed he was

unable

the defendants would not accept a fee waiver form from him

because of an issue related to his residency.
72-75. Given these allegations, plaintiff has

Compl.

flf 67-68,

failed to allege

that he was denied access disability, §

to the courts because of his to

and these claims will be dismissed pursuant

1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) . In addition, plaintiff brings a claim under § 1983 alleging

that his Equal Protection rights were violated because he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, disability.
that two of

religion,

or

This claim is presumably based on his allegation
the individual GDC defendants refused to accept his

legal pleadings because of his
However, plaintiff has

race,

religion,
any

or disability.
support for

failed to provide

factual

14

his claim that he was
individuals,

treated differently from similarly situated

and this claim will be dismissed for failure to

state a claim.

Plaintiff also brings a claim under §

1983 requesting that
the General

the Court enter an order declaring unconstitutional

District Court and the City of Alexandria's policy of refusing to
allow indigent, forma pauperis. must have Article non-residents of the Commonwealth to proceed in this claim, claim. plaintiff To obtain

To survive dismissal of III

standing to assert his

declaratory relief,

a plaintiff must show a substantial

likelihood of future injury.
461 U.S. 95 (1983); Simmons V.

See City of Los Angeles v.
Poe. 47 F.3d 1370, 1382-83

Lyons,
(4th

Cir.

1995).

Because plaintiff has not alleged facts

showing that

he is

likely to suffer future violations of his constitutional this policy, this claim for a declaratory
See Lyons, 491 U.S. at 102-03.

rights as a result of

judgment will also be dismissed. In addition,

plaintiff alleges that

the GDC Defendants had

the plaintiff

"unlawfully remove[d]"

from the Courthouse by the U 76. Plaintiff names
but has not

Alexandria Sheriff's Department.

Comp.

the Alexandria Sheriff's Department as a defendant,

alleged specific facts as

to this defendant or given any

indication as to why his removal was
has

"unlawful."

Therefore,

he

failed to state a claim against the Alexandria Sheriff's
and any claims against this defendant will be

Department,
dismissed.

15

F.

Alexandria Code Enforcement Defendants6 and the HDD

Defendants7
Plaintiff alleges that the Alexandria Code Enforcement
Defendants and the HUD Defendants violated his rights under the

ADA,

the Rehabilitation Act,

and the Equal

Protection Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment by ignoring his written complaints about

the condition of his apartment because of his

race,

religion,

or

disability.

Plaintiff provides no factual support whatsoever for
Therefore, his claims against the Alexandria

these allegations.

Code Enforcement Defendants dismissed for failure to 6.

and the HUD Defendants will be

state a claim.

Human Rights Defendants8

Plaintiff claims that the Human Rights Defendants violated his rights under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to

permit him to file formal complaints against the Crestview

Jannine Pennell, Robert Rodriguez, Russell Furr, Timothy Lawmaster, and the City of the Alexandria Office of Building and Fire Code Administration. Plaintiff states that the individual defendants are employed by the City of Alexandria Office of
Building and Fire Code Administration.

6 The six Code Enforcement Defendants are John Catlett,

7 The four HUD Defendants are Steven Preston,

Ross Conlan,

Lee A. Palman, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plaintiff states that the individual defendants are employed by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development.

Niebauer, Paula A. Avila-Guillen, David Miller, and the City of Alexandria Office of Human Rights. The plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants are employed by the City of Alexandria
Office of Human Rights.

8 The four Human Rights Defendants are Jean Kelleher

16

Commons Defendants

and the Redevelopment Defendants

on March 17,

2007 because of his race,

religion,

or disability.

Plaintiff

also alleges

that

these defendants

illegally refused to accept As

his complaints against the General District Court Defendants. recited above, plaintiff must provide more than conclusory
motion to dismiss.

allegations to survive a 12(b)(6)

Accordingly,

the plaintiff's claims against the Human Rights

Defendants will be dismissed in their entirety.
II. Conclusion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that

plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for failure to state a

claim.
P. 8,

Moreover,

his complaint fails to adhere to Fed.
that each allegation be "simple,

R.

Civ.

which requires

concise,

and direct."

For these reasons,

the complaint must be dismissed

in its entirety.

However,

as a pro se party,

plaintiff will be

given leave to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to re-file any of the claims in this
complaint, he should be mindful of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which

mandates that when a party files a pleading,

he certifies to the

best of his knowledge and belief that
have evidentiary support or ...

"the factual contentions

will likely have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation

17

or discovery."9

If a party violates Rule 11,
Fed. R. Civ.

the Court may
P. 11(c). Any the

impose sanctions on that party. amended complaint must be date of

filed within twenty

(20)

days of

this Memorandum Opinion.

A separate order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion
will be issued with this opinion.

Entered this fjfp

day of January,

2009.

Alexandria,

Virginia

Leonie M. Brinkefta

/s/

United States District Judge

9 Plaintiff's damage claims include a meritless request for
attorney's 385, 398-99 fees. As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff is not

entitled to attorney's
(4th Cir.

fees.
2003).

See,

e.g..

Bond v.

Blum,

317 F.3d

18