## Facts

- Vincent D. Angiolillo and a woman, Crystal, each obtained temporary dating-violence injunctions against the other barring direct or indirect contact, including contact through third parties; Angiolillo was also barred from going to a specified bar.
- Deputies gathered evidence suggesting Angiolillo violated the injunction, including a recorded call to Crystal in which Angiolillo’s voice was heard in the background and witness reports placing him driving close to the prohibited bar.
- Angiolillo claimed Crystal violated her injunction by leaving him a voicemail, but officers reported he did not provide a recording or message.
- The state attorney obtained an arrest warrant, and Angiolillo was arrested for injunction violations.
- Angiolillo sued Collier County, the Sheriff, and deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, asserting false arrest, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy claims.
- The district court dismissed most claims with prejudice, later granted summary judgment to certain deputies on qualified-immunity and merits grounds, denied leave to file a second amended complaint, and awarded defendants attorney’s fees after finding the claims frivolous.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a second amended complaint.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper on § 1983 false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims because the deputies lacked probable cause and were not entitled to qualified immunity.
3. Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to defendants after deeming the claims frivolous.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board.
- Denial of leave to amend was upheld because Angiolillo did not show good cause for the delay or propose a cure for prior pleading deficiencies.
- Summary judgment for the deputies was affirmed because the record established at least arguable probable cause for the arrest, entitling them to qualified immunity on false arrest.
- The § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim failed because absence of probable cause is required and was not shown given arguable probable cause.
- The attorney’s fee award was affirmed because the district court did not err in finding the claims frivolous on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Officers performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established federal rights.
- For § 1983 false arrest, qualified immunity applies when officers had “arguable probable cause,” meaning reasonable officers could believe probable cause existed under the circumstances.
- A § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim requires, among other elements, lack of probable cause for the underlying proceeding; probable cause or arguable probable cause defeats the claim.
- Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion and may be affirmed when a party lacks good cause for delay and fails to show the proposed amendment would remedy deficiencies.
- Attorney’s fees may be awarded to prevailing defendants in § 1983 actions when the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal and summary judgment for Collier County officials, holding that evidence supporting arguable probable cause defeated Angiolillo’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution theories, that the district court properly denied a late amendment attempt, and that an attorney’s fee award was permissible because the claims lacked an adequate factual and legal basis.


Angiolillo v. Collier Cnty., 394 F. App'x 609 (11th Cir. 2010)