## Facts

- Officer Larry R. Harvey stopped Florhline A. Painter in Luray, Virginia, shortly after midnight on November 9, 1984, for erratic driving and arrested her for driving while intoxicated.
- Painter was handcuffed and transported to jail in Harvey’s patrol car; other police vehicles accompanied the transport and maintained visual contact.
- At the jail, Painter’s clothing was disarranged and partially removed; she accused Harvey of rape and excessive force during transport, which Harvey denied.
- On April 9, 1985, Painter presented a complaint to the Luray Town Council and provided a written statement to a local newspaper repeating accusations that Harvey raped her and used excessive force.
- Painter filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging lack of probable cause, excessive force, and sexual assault.
- Harvey filed a Virginia defamation counterclaim based on Painter’s statements to the Town Council and the newspaper.
- A jury found for Harvey on the § 1983 claims and for Harvey on the defamation counterclaim, awarding $20,000.
- After the verdict, Painter challenged subject-matter jurisdiction over the defamation counterclaim; Harvey sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

## Issues

1. Whether the state-law defamation counterclaim was compulsory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), permitting federal ancillary jurisdiction despite no independent jurisdictional basis.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees to a prevailing § 1983 defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction, holding the defamation counterclaim was compulsory under Rule 13(a).
- The court held both claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence because each turned on what happened during Painter’s arrest and transport and whether her accusations about that event were true or false.
- The court emphasized substantial evidentiary overlap and a logical relationship between the § 1983 allegations and the defamation allegations, making separate litigation duplicative.
- The court rejected the argument that the counterclaim was permissive because it involved post-arrest communications; the operative factual dispute remained the arrest events those statements described.
- The court affirmed denial of attorney’s fees, concluding the district court acted within its discretion because Painter’s § 1983 claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

## Legal Principles

- A counterclaim is compulsory under Rule 13(a) when it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim, assessed by overlapping issues of fact and law, evidentiary overlap, res judicata considerations, and a logical relationship.
- When a counterclaim is compulsory, a federal court may exercise ancillary (now supplemental) jurisdiction over it even without an independent federal-question or diversity basis.
- A prevailing defendant in a § 1983 action may recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 only if the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation; losing on disputed facts does not satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld jurisdiction over a police officer’s state-law defamation counterclaim as compulsory because it required deciding the same core factual dispute as the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, and it affirmed the denial of § 1988 fees because the civil-rights suit, though unsuccessful, was not baseless.


Painter v. Harvey, 863 F.2d 329 (4th Cir. 1988)