Tahfs v. Proctor
| Decision Date | 14 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1657.,No. 01-1728.,No. 01-1798.,00-1657.,01-1728.,01-1798. |
| Citation | 316 F.3d 584 |
| Parties | Judy Lynn TAHFS, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. William N. PROCTOR; Miranda K. Proctor, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Michael S. Cafferty (argued and briefed), Vander Male, Bellamy & Gilchrist, Detroit, MI, for Appellant.
Frank D. Eaman (argued and briefed), Steven J. Grobbel (briefed), Bellanca, Beattie & DeLisle, Harper Woods, MI, for Appellees.
Before: RYAN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; HAYNES, District Judge.*
The plaintiff, Judy Lynn Tahfs, appeals from the district court's order dismissing, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the complaint Tahfs had filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against William N. Proctor and Miranda K. Proctor, alleging that they had acted in concert with staff members of the Wayne County, Michigan, Third Circuit Court to obtain personal protection orders that violated Tahfs's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Tahfs also appeals from the district court's order awarding the Proctors $6,865 in attorney fees, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. On cross-appeal, the Proctors argue that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to award $12,301.78 in attorney fees, as defense counsel had sought.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Tahfs's § 1983 claim. However, because Tahfs's legal argument was not unreasonable, frivolous, or without foundation, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in awarding $6,865 in attorney fees, and we REVERSE that award.
From the early 1990s to October 1999, Judy Lynn Tahfs and William N. Proctor, a Detroit-based television reporter, carried on an extramarital affair. Tahfs alleges that after the affair ended, Proctor began a campaign of harassment and intimidation designed to prevent her from making public their relationship. Tahfs states that, due to the harassment, she intended in October 1999 to obtain a personal protection order (PPO), but that Proctor persuaded her not to file the petition. Shortly thereafter, Proctor and his wife, Miranda K. Proctor, filed their own petitions for PPOs against Tahfs. On October 25, 1999, the Wayne County Third Circuit Court issued separate ex parte PPOs for William and Miranda Proctor against Tahfs. In response, Tahfs filed a complaint in federal district court on January 26, 2000, alleging, in effect, corrupt complicity between the Proctors and unnamed personnel of the Wayne County Circuit Court to deprive Tahfs of her constitutional rights, as more fully detailed below.
Under Michigan law, a respondent has the right to bring a motion to rescind a PPO within 14 days of being served with notice or receiving actual notice of the PPO, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2950(13), and "the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion to modify or rescind the ex parte personal protection order within 14 days after the filing of the motion to modify or rescind." Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2950(14). Despite Tahfs's attempts to obtain a timely hearing in the Wayne County Circuit Court to dissolve the PPOs, no hearing was held until April 27, 2000. When the hearing was finally held, Tahfs's counsel contended that the PPOs, as written, infringed upon his client's First Amendment rights. In addition to preventing her from having contact with the Proctors, the PPOs prevented Tahfs from "us[ing] individuals or media to harass bother, threaten, i.e., presenting information, photos, details of past relationship." The state court declined to set aside the PPOs, and instead, issued a new PPO preventing William Proctor from contacting Tahfs.
Tahfs then amended her previously filed § 1983 federal complaint and alleged, among other things, violation of her free speech and due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively. Tahfs contended that the Proctors had acted in concert with state actors to deprive her of "her First Amendment rights because she cannot truthfully speak to third persons or media (or provide them with photos and documents) regarding the Defendants." Tahfs also claimed that the Proctors obtained the PPOs "corruptly," and that because staff members of the Wayne County Circuit Court acted jointly with the Proctors to obtain unconstitutional PPOs, the defendants were state actors for § 1983 purposes. In response, the Proctors filed a motion to dismiss.
At a hearing held in federal district court, Tahfs's counsel argued that once the Proctors obtained an "immediately enforceable state judgment," they could invoke the full power of the state and could be considered state actors for § 1983 purposes. The district court noted that while Tahfs may have been "disappointed ... about the treatment [she] received by a clerk in the Wayne County Circuit Court," the complaint failed to make any showing that the defendants were state actors. In particular, the district court noted that Tahfs failed to allege any facts that would demonstrate that the defendants, or Wayne County Circuit Court staff members, had acted corruptly. The district court dismissed Tahfs's complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
On April 14, 2000, one month before the district court dismissed Tahfs's complaint, the Proctors' counsel served a motion for Rule 11 sanctions on Tahfs and, on the same date, counsel filed an identical motion with the district court. Apparently, counsel very soon recognized that by filing the Rule 11 motion contemporaneously with its service upon the plaintiff, counsel had failed to comply with Rule 11's "safe harbor" provision. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(A). He therefore promptly filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion in the district court. Although the parties dispute the significance of defense counsel's non-compliance with the "safe harbor" provisions, for our purposes it is sufficient to note that on May 31, 2000, defense counsel refiled his motion for Rule 11 sanctions, requesting $6,865 in attorney fees and expenses. In addition, the Proctors petitioned the court for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), also seeking $6,865. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for consideration.
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Tahfs's complaint, even read liberally, failed to make out an actionable claim that the Proctors' PPOs violated Tahfs's First Amendment rights. The magistrate judge also held that the complaint's vague, unsupported allegations of corrupt joint action failed adequately to allege that the Proctors were state actors. The magistrate judge concluded that § 1988 fees and Rule 11 sanctions were "clearly warranted."
In a two-paragraph order, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and, in a separate order, directed the parties to submit proposals for Rule 11 sanctions and applicable attorney fees. In response, the Proctors' counsel recalculated his estimated fees and costs and requested a total of $12,301.78. The district court then issued an order denying Tahfs's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's recommendation and awarded defense counsel $6,865. The district court did not indicate the basis for its decision or how it arrived at the award amount.
Before proceeding to the merits of the parties' argument, we address a threshold question raised by the defendants, concerning our jurisdiction to proceed. In their brief, the Proctors challenged whether we have appellate jurisdiction, noting that Tahfs's brief had omitted any reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, or some similar statute, when discussing the basis for appellate jurisdiction. In addition, the Proctors contended that the pendency of the attorney fee issue rendered the Rule 12(b)(6) motion a non-final order. These arguments are without merit.
The involuntary dismissal of an action "operates as an adjudication upon the merits." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). When the district court dismissed Tahfs's complaint, it issued a final, appealable order. The plaintiff's failure to cite § 1291 is of no jurisdictional moment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has adopted "a uniform rule that an unresolved issue of attorney's fees for the litigation in question does not prevent judgment on the merits from being final." Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 486 U.S. 196, 202, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988). We are satisfied that we have appellate jurisdiction.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Pfennig v. Household Credit Servs., Inc., 295 F.3d 522, 525 (6th Cir.2002). "Although th[e] standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals is quite liberal," the complaint must contain "either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements" and the allegations must constitute "more than bare assertions of legal conclusions." Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The district court dismissed Tahfs's § 1983 claim, holding that the Proctors could not be considered state actors for § 1983 purposes. "A § 1983 claim must satisfy two elements: 1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and 2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law." Ellison v. Garbarino, 48 F.3d 192, 194 (6th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A plaintiff may not proceed under § 1983 against a private party "no matter how discriminatory or wrongful" the party's conduct. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Nevertheless, there are circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Fisher Titus Hosp.
...may not proceed under § 1983 against a private party `no matter how discriminatory or wrongful' the party's conduct." Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 This circuit recognizes thre......
-
In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc.
...Under Rule 11, a party or attorney can be sanctioned absent an "objective" basis that the claim was sound. See Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 594 (6th Cir.2003) (requiring objective basis for claims under Rule 11); Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1105-06 (11th Cir.2001) (same). Both proced......
-
Gillispie v. Miami Twp.
...acting under color of state law deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003). Generally, "A plaintiff may not proceed under § 1983 against a private party 'no matter how discriminatory or wrongful' the ......
-
In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-MS-0040 (JDB) (D. D.C. 4/24/2003)
...Under Rule 11, a party or attorney can be sanctioned absent an "objective" basis that the claim was sound. See Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 594 (6th Cir. 2003 ) (requiring objective basis for claims under Rule 11); Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1105-06 (11th Cir. 2001) (same). Both pro......
-
AN ANTI-CONSPIRACY THEORY: HOW ANTITRUST LAW IS ERODING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION SET FORTH IN s. 1985(3) AND s. 1983.
...2021 WL 37989, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-1116 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2021). (133.) See Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003) ("A [section] 1983 claim must satisfy two elements: 1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the Un......