1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DORMAN et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12552 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 

MOTION FOR INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES (ECF No. 100) AND (2) 

TERMINATING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUESTING 

RULING (ECF No. 106) AS MOOT 

 In this action, Plaintiff River of Life Ministries, INT and its pastor, Plaintiff 

Michael Dorman, challenge a provision of Defendant Clinton Township’s zoning 

code that applies to the real property located at 22515 Laurel (the “Laurel Property”) 

on which River of Life wants to locate and operate its church. In an Amended 

Complaint, River of Life and Dorman bring seven claims against Clinton Township: 

 Violation of the Substantial Burden provision of the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) 

(see Am. Compl., ECF No. 8 at ¶¶ 88-97); 

 Violation of the Equal Terms provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000cc(b)(1) (see id. at ¶¶ 98-103); 

 Violation of the Nondiscrimination provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000cc(b)(2) (see id. at ¶¶ 104-13); 
2 

 Violation of the First Amendment (see id. at ¶¶ 114-19); 

 Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see 

id. at ¶¶ 120-37); 

 Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment (see id. at ¶¶ 138-44); and 

 An “Appeal from Agency Action” (see id. at ¶¶ 145-49). 

 On December 8, 2017, Clinton Township agreed to permit River of Life to 

use the Laurel Property as a church. (See Stipulated Order, ECF No. 40.) Dorman 

and River of Life thereafter filed a motion for interim fees and costs pursuant to the 

Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). (See First 

Attorney Fee Mot., ECF No. 43.) Section 1988(b) permits a court to award attorney 

fees and costs to a “prevailing party” in a RLUIPA action. It provides, in relevant 

part, that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of .... [RLUIPA] ... 

the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United 

States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 

 The Court, over Clinton Township’s opposition, awarded Dorman and River 

of Life a substantial amount of interim fees. (See Order, ECF No. 64.) More 

specifically, the Court ordered Clinton Township to pay Dorman and River of Life 

$60,897.00 in attorney fees and $1,268.69 in costs. (See id., PageID.2355.) 

 Even though Clinton Township granted River of Life permission to use the 

Laurel Property as a church in 2017, this litigation continued, and Dorman and River 

of Life have won some victories. Since the Court awarded Dorman and River of 
3 

Life interim fees, it has, among other things, entered orders (1) granting Dorman’s 

and River of Life’s motion to disqualify Clinton Township’s counsel Robert Davis 

(see Order, ECF No. 75) and (2) granting River of Life’s motion for summary 

judgment on its Equal Terms claim, denying Dorman’s motion for summary 

judgment on his Equal Terms claim, and granting Clinton Township’s motion on 

Dorman’s Equal Terms claim (see Op. and Order, ECF No. 99). 

 On August 22, 2019, Dorman and River of Life filed a second motion seeking 

interim fees and costs under Section 1988(b). (See Second Attorney Fee Mot., ECF 

No. 100.) Dorman and River of Life have also filed a motion seeking an expedited 

ruling on their interim fee motion. (See Mot., ECF No. 106.) Clinton Township 

opposes both motions. (See ECF Nos. 103, 107.) The Court concludes that it may 

resolve the motions without oral argument. See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). 

 The Court has carefully reviewed Dorman’s and River of Life’s motions and 

declines to exercise its discretion to provide another interim award of fees and costs 

at this time. As described above, the Court has already exercised that discretion once 

and provided Dorman and River of Life a substantial interim fee award. The Court 

believes that the best time to assess the value and appropriate amount of the fees 

incurred since the Court’s first award is at the conclusion of this case. At that point, 

the Court will have a fuller appreciation of, and better perspective from which to 

assess, the additional value, claimed necessity and propriety, and worth of the legal 
4 

work performed since the Court’s prior interim fee award. Thus, under these 

circumstances, the most prudent course of action is to review Dorman’s and River 

of Life’s request for fees at the end of the case. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Dorman’s and 

River of Life’s second motion for interim attorney fees (ECF No. 100) WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to Dorman’s and River of Life’s ability to seek these fees at the 

conclusion of this case. The Court will also TERMINATE AS MOOT Dorman’s 

and River of Life’s motion for an expedited ruling on their attorney fee request (ECF 

No. 106).

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 26, 2020 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on February 26, 2020, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764