Cooney v. Casady, 735 F.3d 514

Cooney challenged an indicated finding of mental injury by DCFS after a hearing, appealing through state and federal channels.
DCFS transcripts were created by Magnabosco, an independent contractor, while Fishman transcripts were later deemed the official record.
Cooney alleged Casady and Sosnowski conspired with Magnabosco to alter transcripts to deprive her of due process.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants on the § 1983 conspiracy claim and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; denied defendants’ fees requests under § 1988 and Rule 11.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, denied Rule 11 and § 1988 relief, and ordered Cooney to show cause under Rule 38 sanctions.
Court emphasized that mere discrepancies between transcripts do not prove a conspiratorial agreement and noted Cooney’s reliance on ghost counsel and the breadth of her litigation history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a triable § 1983 conspiracy	Cooney argues circumstantial evidence shows knowledge and contact among defendants.	Casady, Sosnowski, Magnabosco had no communication or agreement; discrepancies are inconclusive.	No reasonable jury could conclude a conspiracy existed.
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the conspiracy claim	Discrepancies in transcripts create a material issue of fact favorable to Cooney.	Absence of agreement or communication defeats conspiracy; discrepancies alone are insufficient.	District court's summary judgment affirmed.
Whether the district court properly denied fees under § 1988	Complaint was meritless but not frivolous; discovery warranted time and effort.	Complaint was frivolous or groundless, warranting fees.	No abuse of discretion; fees denied.
Whether Rule 11 sanctions were properly denied	No bad faith or frivolous filing found; ghost counsel assisted but not sanctionable.	Filings frivolous and harassment warrants Rule 11 sanctions.	Sanctions not imposed; district court appropriate in its discretion.
Whether Rule 38 sanctions should issue on appeal	Appeal presents legitimate challenges to district court’s ruling.	Appeal rehashes rejected positions; frivolous.	Rule 38 sanctions warranted; Cooney ordered to show cause.

Lewis v. Mills, 677 F.3d 324 (7th Cir. 2012) (requires concerted effort between state actor and private party for § 1983 conspiracy)
Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2007) (explains conspiracy elements in civil rights actions)
Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012) (evidence of concerted action required between state actor and private party)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979) (civil conspiracy requires an agreement; general objective not enough)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (standard for awarding attorney’s fees under § 1988; frivolous if meritless)
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1980) (fee-shifting not automatic; must be meritless)
Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirmed denial of fees where appeal lacked merit; close case, but not frivolous)
Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc., 643 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 38 sanctions; de novo review caveat and notice requirements)
Berwick Grain Co. v. Ill. Dep’t of Agric., 217 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2000) (frivolousness standard for appeals)
Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009) (context on substantial credibility and plausibility in related claims)