Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-00957/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-00957-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA LAUBE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:02cv957-T

DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., ) (WO)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties having been unable to resolve the fee

issues, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’s fees and costs

(Doc. No. 344) is set for final submission, without oral

argument, on July 1, 2005. 

(2) To the extent plaintiffs’ initial submissions do

not meet the requirements of this order, plaintiffs are to

file a supplemental brief and evidentiary materials by June

3, 2005. In their brief, plaintiffs should address the

factors articulated in American Civil Liberties Union of

Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir. 1999); see also

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 358 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 5
2

Dillard v. City of Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.

2000); Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d

1292 (11th Cir. 1988); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express,

Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974); Hearn v. General Elec.

Co., 1996 WL 937034 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 1996) (Thompson,

J.); Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Sessions, 930 F. Supp.

1492 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (Thompson, J.).

(3) Defendants are to file their brief and evidentiary

materials by June 24, 2005. In their brief, defendants

should address, among other things, what they believe to be

reasonable hourly fees; the particular items or categories

of time to which they object and why; the particular items

or categories of expenses to which they object and why; and

any modification of the total fees and expenses they wish to

raise based on other defenses.

(4) Plaintiffs may file a reply brief by July 1, 2005.

(5) The discussion of the evidence in the briefs must be

accompanied by a specific reference, by page and line, to

where the evidence can be found in the supporting and

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 358 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 5
3

attached documents, affidavits, depositions, etc. The

parties are reminded of the following cautionary

instructions from the Eleventh Circuit:

(A) The fee applicant bears the burden of “establishing

entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours

and hourly rates.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303.

(B) This burden includes (i) supplying the court with

specific and detailed evidence from which the court

can determine the reasonable hourly rate, (ii)

maintaining records to show the time spent on the

different claims, and (iii) setting out with

sufficient particularity the general subject matter

of the time expenditures so that the district court

can assess the time claimed for each and every

activity. See Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427 (11th Cir.

1999).

(C) “A well-prepared fee petition also would include a

summary,” that is, a “grouping [of] the time

entries by the nature of the activity or stage of

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 358 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 5
4

the case.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Norman,

836 F.2d at 1303). 

(D) A fee applicant should also exercise “billing

judgment,” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 428 (quoting Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933,

1939-40 (1983)), that is, the applicant should

“exclude from [his] fee applications ‘excessive,

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary [hours],’ id.,

which are hours ‘that would be unreasonable to bill

to a client and therefore to one’s adversary

irrespective of the skill, reputation or experience

of counsel.’” Id. (quoting Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301

(emphasis omitted)).

(E) “Those opposing fee applications have obligations,

too. In order for [this] court [] to carry out

[its] duties in this area, ‘objections and proof

from fee opponents’ concerning hours that should be

excluded must be specific and ‘reasonably

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 358 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 5
precise.’” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 428 (quoting Norman,

836 F.2d at 1301).

(F) “It should ... be noted that in line with the goal

of obtaining objectivity, satisfactory evidence

necessarily must speak to rates actually billed and

paid in similar lawsuits. Testimony that a given

fee is reasonable is therefore unsatisfactory

evidence of market rate.” Norman, 836 F.2d at

1299. Or, to put it another way, “Generalized

statements that the time spent was reasonable or

unreasonable ... are not particularly helpful and

not entitled to much weight.” Id.

 DONE, this the 20th day of May, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 358 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 5