the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) compared with others similarly situated, the plaintiff was selectively treated; and (2) such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations, such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person. Crowley v. Courville, 76 F.3d 47, 52-53 (2d Cir.1996) (citations omitted); accord Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 F.3d 674, 683 (2d Cir.1995); FSK Drug Corp. v. Perales, 960 F.2d 6, 10 (2d Cir.1992). Recent Second Circuit decisions have been careful to apply each prong of the test separately, finding the failure to satisfy either inquiry fatal to the plaintiffs claim. See, e.g., Zahra, 48 F.3d at 684 (<HOLDING>). Even accepting the facts as alleged in the
holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused  violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant  707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing recognizing that even where the plaintiff presents evidence of selective treatment failure to demonstrate malice or bad faith requires dismissal of the claim holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim