Whether a § 1983 civil rights claim can be deemed frivolous and time-barred solely based on an uncertain analogous tort, justifying prevailing defendant attorney's fees

After the state appellate court vacated the dental board’s decision to revoke his dental license on due process grounds, Petitioner filed a federal suit against Respondents. The District Court dismissed Petitioner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as time barred, with prejudice, and awarded prevailing defendant attorney’s fees . The Fifth Circuit agreed Petitioner’s due process rights were likely violated, but held malicious prosecution cannot be the analogous tort because the favorable termination occurred while the federal suit was pending and, without considering any other frivolity factors, held the time bar outweighed the merits of the claim. The Fifth Circuit also held that the § 1983 and state tort claims were “so closely interwoven,” that the reasonableness of the fee award turned entirely on whether it was correctly calculated under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The questions presented are: 1. I s it proper to deem an otherwise meritorious § 1983 claim “so clearly time -barred ” that it is frivolous under § 1988 b ased solely on an uncertain analogous tort, or did the lower courts error by deeming the civil rights claim meritless and awarding prevailing defendant attorney’s fees ? 2. Was the lower court’s award of defendants ’ attorney’s fees properly calculated?