### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31135

R IC KYD F O X , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. B IL L YR AYV IC E , C h ie f o f P o lic e fo rth e T o w n o f V in to n ; T O W N O F V IN T O N , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . R E AV L E Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h i s i s an ap pea lf

rom t h e di st ri ctc ou rt ' s or der gran t i n g D efen da n t sA ppel l ee s at t or neys ' fee s and co st s af t er t he di sm i ss al of A ppel l ant Fox' s fede r al cl ai m s. F ox argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed becau se A pp el l ees w ere not preva i l i n g pa rt i es, an d becau se Fox st i l lm ai n ta in s s t ate- l aw cl ai m s agai n st Ap p e l l e e s . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM
.

I . B A CK GRO UND F ox' s c au ses of

a ct i on st em f

rom t w o i n ci den t s t h at t ook p l ace i n 200 5 aft er Foxa nd Appe l l e e Vi c e e ac h a nno unc e d hi s c and i da c y t o b e po l i c e c hi e f i n t he T ow n of

V i n t on , L ou i si an a. Th e f i rsteven tt ook p l ace i n Jan u ary, w h en United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 19, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

2 i n cu m b en t V i ce se n t F ox a n " a n o n ym ou s" l etter i n w h i ch V i ce a ttem p ted to bl ac km ai lFox i nt o no t r unn i ng f or of f i c e. Th e s ec ond ev entt oo k pl ac e a ta l oc al h i gh sc ho o lb as ke t ba l lg am e i n Fe br uar y, w he n a t hi r d p ar t y ac c us e d Fo x of
u t t eri n g a raci alsl u r and , at t h e i n st i g a tion o f V i ce, f i l ed a fal se pol i ce r eport regardi n g F ox' s al l eged utt eran ce. In D ecem ber 200 5, F o x brou gh ta sui ti n L ou i si an a st ate c ou rtagainst Vi c e a n d t h e T o wn o f Vi n t o n , a l l e g i n gt h e a b o v e - s t a t e d fa c t s a n d c l a i m i ng fede ra lan d state ca u ses of a cti on . In J a n u a ry 20 0 6 , the cas e w a s rem ov ed to fede ra lcou rt. In A p ri l20 0 7 , V i ce w a s tri ed a n d fou n d gu i l ty of extor ti on i n state cri m i n al court f

or t h e an on ym ou s l et t er. M ean w h i l e, di scovery i n t h e civi lcase p rod u ced ev i d en ce of V i ce' s p a rti ci p a ti on i n the f i l i n g o f th e false po l i ce re p ort. I n Se pt e m be r2 00 7, t he de fe nda nt s b r o ugh ta m o t i o n f o rj udg m e nto n t he p le a d in g s a n d fo rs u m m a r y j u d g m e n t
. I n th e ir m o t io n , t h e y a r g u e d th a tF o x 's cl ai m s h ad n o basi s i n federal l aw . In h i s response t o t h e m ot i on , F ox ad m i t t ed t hat he had fai l ed t o pr ope r l y pr es ent any fede r alc ause of ac t i on. Spec i f

i c al l y, Foxs t at e d: D e fe n d a n ts co r r e c tly a r g u e th a t F o x p r e s e n ts n o v a lid cla im pur s uantt o 4 2 U
. S. C. § 198 3. A s t o t he e xt o r t i o n l e t t e r , i tw as s e nt ano nym o us l y. Vi c e di d no t ac t unde r " c o l o r o f l aw" c o nc e r ni ng t he extor t i on l et t er. As t o t h e fa b r i c a t e d b a s k e t b a l l g a me i n c i d e n t , F o x c a n n o ts h o w a dep ri vati on of

a ri gh t , pri vi l ege or i m m u n i t y secured by the U n i t ed S t ates C on st i t u t i on an d i t s l aw s. A l t h o u g h V ic e an d C ary act ed unde r" c o l o ro f

l aw" w he ne ve rt he y c o ns pi r e d t o fab r i c at e t he bask et ballgam e i n ci den ta n d f i l e a fal se p ol i ce report, F ox w as not preven t ed f

rom run n i n g f

or el ect i on . N or i s t h e d e fam ati on F ox su ff ere d as a re s u l t of

this fa b ri ca ti on de p ri va ti on of a pr op erty ri gh t. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

This sectio n states, in relevant part, that "[i]n anyactionor procee ding to enfo rce a 1 pr ovis ion of

s ect ion[]
. . . 1983.
. . , t he cour t, in its di sc ret ion, may allowthe pre vailing par ty, othe r than theUnite d Sta tes , a reas onableattor ney's f ee as part of the cos ts
. . . . " 42 U. S. C. § 1 9 8 8 (b).
This sectio n states, in relevant part, that "[u]nle ss a federal statute , th ese rule s, or 2 a c ourtord er p rovides othe rwise, co sts – othe r th an attorney 's fee s – should b e allo wed to the prev ailing

party." F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 4 (d)( 1 ). 5 7 7F .3 d 5 7 8 , 5 9 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9). 3 5 1 9F .3 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 0( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 4 449 U. S. 5, 14, 101 S. Ct. 173, 178 (198 0 ) (cit ing C h rist ia nsb u rg

Ga rm en tC

o. v . 5 E E OC, 4 3 4U .S

. 4 1 2 , 4 2 1 , 9 8S

. C t. 6 9 4 , 7 0 0( 1 9 7 8))

. 5 4 9F .3 d 9 8 5 , 9 9 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 6 3 In lig h t o f F o x ' s o w n a d m is s io n s , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d F o x ' s fe d e r a l cla im s w i th pr ejud i ce a n d rem a n d ed the rem a i n i n g sta te-l a w cl a i m s to state cou rt. Th e de fendant s m ove d f orat t or neys ' f

ee s purs uant t o 4 2 U
. S. C

. § 1988 1
a n d fo r c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 5 4 , a r g u in g t h a tF o x 's 2 federal cl ai m s w ere f

ri vol ou s, un reasona bl e a nd wi t ho utf o unda t i o n. The d i st ri ct court gran t ed that m ot i on , an d F ox n ow app eal s. II. A N A L Y S IS W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s a wa r d o f a t t o r n e y s ' fe e s u n d e r 42 U
. S. C. § 1 9 8 8 fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Merc ed v. K asson . W e revi ew f

i n di n gs of

factf or 3
c le a re r r o ra n d co n c lu s io n s o f la w d e n o v o . D e ar m o r e v . Ci ty of G ar l and

. 4 Fort he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o pr o pe r l y awar d a d efen da nta t t o r ne ys ' fe e s i n a § 1983 ac t i on, t he c our t m ust f i nd t hat ( 1) t he def

endant i s a pre va i l i n g part y, and ( 2) t hatt he pl ai nt i f f' s c l ai m s a r e f

r i vo l o us , unr e as o nab l e , o rw i t ho ut fo u n d a tio n . Hug h e s v . R o we ; S tov er v . Ha ttiesb u rgP u b

. S ch

. D ist. A n aw ard 5 6 Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

SeeF ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 4 (d)( 1 ). 72 4 0F .3 d 5 0 5 , 5 0 8( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 853 2 U .S. 59 8, 6 03-0 4, 1 21 S. C t. 1 835 , 183 9-40 (200 1) (ju dgment onth e merits altering 9 le g al re lation shipo f partie s e st ab li sh esap rev ailin gp arty). 89 1 F .2d 5 33, 539(5th Cir. 1 990) (dismissal with prej udic e i s t ant amou nt to 10 ju dgment onth e merits, re nderingdef e ndants prevailing

parties for c osts purposes under Rule 5 4). 61 7 F .2d 1 164 , 11 69-7 0 (5 th Cir. 1 980) (dismissal o f cl aims with prej udic e i s an 11 adjudicat ion on the m erit s for pur pos esof res judicat a, m aking def enda nt a pre vailing par ty) See Dean , 24 0 F .3d at 5 11. 12 4 o f c o s t s s i m pl y req ui r e s a de t e r m i nat i o n t hatt he de fe nda ntw as a pr e va i l i ng par t y. 7 1. W h et h er A pp el l ees are preva i l i n g pa rt i es W e ad dress f

i rst w h et h er A pp el l ees are preva i l i n g pa rt i es f or pu rposes of § 1 9 8 8 a n d R u le 5 4
. S ee D ean v. R i ser . T h e record sh ow s that the court gr an t ed 8 A p p e ll e e s ' m o t io n fo rju d g m e n to n th e p le a d in g s a n d d is m is s e d F o x 's § 1 9 8 3 c l ai m s w i t h prej u di ce af t er Fox conceded t h at he ha d fai l ed to st ate a fe de r alc l ai m . Al lo t he rt hi ngs b e i ng e qual , t hi s m ak e s Appe l l e e s pr e va i l i ng p a r tie s . S ee Buck hanno n Bd. & Car e Ho m e , I nc . v . W
. V

a. D e p'tof He al t h & H u m an R es. ; She e t s v . Ya m a h a Mo t o r s Co r p . , U. S. A. ; A n t h ony v. Mari on 9 1 0 C ounty G e n. Ho s

p. Ho we v e r , F o x a r g u e s t h a tAp p e l l e e s a r e n o tp r e v a i l i ng 11 pa r t i e s b e c aus e Fo x vo l unt ar i l y di s m i s s e d hi s fe de r alc l ai m s . Fo x po i nt s t o o ur de c i s i o n i n D e an , w h e r e w e h e ld th a t w h e n a p la in tiff v o lu n ta r ily d is m is s e s h is cl ai m s i n a § 1983 act i on , t h e defen da n ti s not a " preva i l i n g pa rt y" f or at t orneys' fees pu rposes " u n l ess t h e defenda n t can dem on st rat e t h at t h e pl ai n t i f f w i t h drew to a v o id a d is fa v o r a b le ju d g m e n t o n th e m e r its ." 12 Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

SeeF ED . R. C IV . P. 41(a) (allowin g plaintiff to dismiss cl aims befo re o pposin g party 13 file s an swe r ormo tionf orsu mmaryj u dgme nt)

. See Dean , 24 0 F .3d at 5 10 (statin g potentiallyvali d groun ds for vo luntarilydro pping 14 fe de ral cl aim s)

.

Id

. at 510 (quot ing Ch rist iansb urg, 4 3 4U .S

. at 4 2 0 , 9 8S

. C t. at 6 9 4). 15 5 F ox di d n otf

i l e a m ot i on t o vol u n t ari l y di sm i ss h i s f ed e ra l claim s bef

ore def endant s r es ponded. R at her , Fox al l ow ed t he c as e t o pro c ee d f orm or e t han 13
e i ght e e n m o nt hs i n fe de r al c o ur ta nd t hr o ugh c o ns i de r ab l e di s c o ve r y be f o r e he
w as chall en ged on t h e l egal suff i ci en cy of

hi s f ederal cl ai m s. A tt h at poi n t , F ox w a s f orce d to con ced e th eir l a ck of l eg a lm erit a n d sh i ft ed f ocu s to h i s state cl ai m s. Th eref

ore, an y deci si on F ox m ad e t o aba n don hi s f ederal cl ai m s di d n ot

" m erel y i n di cat e[] hi s pref erred f orum , " or a cha n ge i n t h e l aw or deci si ve fact s. 14 R at her , i tr epr es ent ed r ec ogni t i on t hat Fox' s fede r alc l ai m s sho ul d neve rhave been b ro u gh t
. M oreover, w i t h ou tdeci si ve act i on by A pp el l ees, F ox' s basel ess fede ra lclai m s w oul d have pro c ee ded t o t r i al

. H e c hos e t o di sm i ss t he f ede r al
c l ai m s bec ause he c oul d m anufac t ure no ar gum entt o s upportt hem w hen he w as cha l l en ged

. T o d en y fees u n der t h ese c i rcum st an ces w ou l d d efeat t h e pu rpose of ever r e co g n izi n g defenda n t s as " preva i l i n g pa rt i es, " w h i ch i s t o " ' protec t d e fe n d a n t s fr o m b u r d e n s o m e lit ig a t io n h a v in gn o le g a l o rfa c t u a l b a s is .'" 15 W e hol d, t h eref

ore, t h at A pp el l ees are " preva i l i n g pa rt i es" f or purp oses of R ul e 5 4 and § 1988. 2. W he t he rF ox' s § 1 98 3 c l ai m s a r e f r i vo l o us , unr e as o nab l e , o rw i t ho ut f ou n da t i on W e nex tl ook to t h e m eri tof F ox' s c l ai m s. W h en d et erm i n i n g w h et h er a c la im is f

r iv o lo u s , u n r e a s o n a b le , o rw ith o u t fo u n d a tio n , a d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

2 1 1 F .3 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 0). 16 Ch rist iansb urg, 4 3 4U .S

. at 4 2 1 -2 2 , 9 8S

. C t. at 7 0 0(em ph a si s ino ri gin al)

. 17 Stover , 549 F.3d at 997- 98 (quot ing J onesv . Tex. T

ec hU n iv
. , 656 F.2d 11 37, 11 45 (5th 18 C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ))

. F o xa t tem pt s toargue in his app ellat e brief that theevidenc e pro videdthrough 19 discoveryactua ll y p r ovided federal groun ds for reli ef pursuant to§ 198 3. Bec auseFox ab a n do n edth es e argu me ntsat th e di strictc ourt , wewill n otc on si de r th emnow . See Martinez v. Tex. Dep 't of

Criminal J

ust ice , 30 0 F .3d 5 67, 574(5th Cir. 2 002 ) (no ting th e gene ral rul e th at "f ailuret o ti me lyr ais e a ni ssu e indis trict co urtwaivesth at is su e onapp eal" ). 6 c o ns i de r( 1) w he t he rt he pl ai nt i f f e s t ab l i s he d a pr i m a fac i e c as e , ( 2) w he t he rt he d e fe n d a n t o ffe r e d to s e tt le , a n d (3 ) w h e th e rth e co u r t h e ld a fu ll tr ia l. M ye r s v. C i ty of W estMon roe . I n m ak i ng t he s e de t e r m i nat i o ns , a c o ur tm us t" r e s i s tt he

16 unde r s t and ab l e t e m pt at i o n t o e nga ge i n posthoc re a son i n g b y con cl u d i n g th a t, becau se a pl ai n t i f

f di d n otul t i m atel y preva i l , hi s a ction m u stha ve been
unr e as o nab l e o rw i t ho utf o unda t i o n. " I ns t e ad , a co ur tm us tas k w he t he r" ' t he

17 case i s s o l acking i n argu able m eri tas t o be grou n dl ess or w i t h ou tf ou n da t i on
r a t h e rth a n w h e t h e rth e c la im w a s u lt im a t e ly s u c c e s s fu l.'" 18 L ooking to t h e f

i rstfact or, t h e d i st ri ctcou rtcor rect l y concl u ded t h at Fox fai l ed to est abli sh an y pri m a faci e federal cl ai m . C on t rary t o F ox' s asser t i on s on ap pea l , t h e di sm i ssalof F ox' s f ederal const i t u t i on alcla im s i s not based on e v id e n tia r y h u r d le s th a t h e fa c e d a t th e e n d o f d is c o v e r y . R a th e r , F o x ' s cla im s are groun dl ess becau se t h e of fen ses as al l ege d i n hi s Compl ai nth ave n o redress i n t h e C on st i t u t i on or l aw s of t h e U n i t ed S t ates. Th e an on ym ou s nature of 19 Vi c e ' s l e t t e rt o F o x and t he l ac k o f c o ns t i t ut i o nal l y- pr o t e c t e d ha r m s t e m m i ng f r o m t he fal s e po l i c e r e po r tw e r e c i r c um s t anc e s o f w hi c h Fo x w as awar e f r o m t he
ou t setof

l i t i gati on . C on sequ en t l y, n o ev i den ce produ ced i n t h e di scovery proc ess cou l d ch a n ge the u n d erlying de fi ci en ci es in F ox ' s C om p l a i n t. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

Hensley v. Eckerhart , 4 6 1 U .S

. 4 2 4 , 4 2 9n .2 , 1 0 3S

. C t. 1 9 3 3 , 1 9 3 7n .2( 1 9 8 3). 20 Hughes , 44 9 U .S. at14 , 10 1 S . C t. at 1 78. 21 Ch rist iansb urg, 43 4 U .S. at42 1-22 , 98S. Ct. at 700
. 22 7 Loo ki ng t o t he s e c o nd fac t o r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tc l e ar l y e r ri n f i ndi ng t h at A pp el l ees di d n oteng age i n set t l em en tneg ot i ati on s w i t h F ox. Th e evi den ce p rese n ted by bo th pa rti es sh ow s th a t allthe do c u m e n te d settl em en t attem p ts
w ere on e-si d ed , w i th F ox a sse rti n g th e se ttl em en t de m a n d s. N o ev i d en ce p oin ts t o A pp el l e e s m ak i ng t he i ro w n s e t t l e m e nto f fe r s . W hi l e Fo x po i nt s t o b i l l i ng st atem en t s f

rom A pp e ll e e s' coun selshow i n g cha rges f or di scussi on s of set t l em en tan d possibl e m edi ati on w i t h F ox, t h ese s t atem en t s al on e do n otshow cl ear err or i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s f i n d in g . T h e y on l y show t h at A pp el l ees c o n s id e r e d F o x ' s d e m a n d s , n o t t h a t t h e y re p lie d w ith th e iro w n . R egard i n g t h e thir d fact or, itis u n di spu t ed t h at F ox' s federal cl ai m s w ere a ll d is m is s e d w ith o u t t r ia l. In concl u si on , al lt h e fac to rs est abli shi n g a f ri vol ou s c ase ha ve been
s a tis fie d

. A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in f i n di n g A pp el l ees enti t l ed to att orneys' fees. 3. W h et h er A pp el l ees m u stprevai lover t h e en t i re case t o be aw arded fees In t h e al t erna t i ve, F ox argu es t h at even i f hi s f ederal cl ai m s are m eri t l ess, A pp el l ees are n otenti t l ed to att orneys' fees a n d cost s becau se A pp el l ees d i d n ot preva i lov er the en t i re acti on . S peci f i cal l y, F ox poi n t s t o t h e factt h at t h e di st ri ct court rem an ded F ox' s s t ate c l ai m s t h at w ere based on t h e sam e al l eged fact s. W he n s pe ak i ng o f

w he t he ra defe nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o a t t o r ne ys ' fe e s , t he Su pre m e Co u rt d es c r i bes a " sui t , " an " ac t i on, " and bot h a " c l ai m " and an 20 21

" ac t i on" as t he pr ope rqu ant a fordet er m i ni ng f r i vol i t y, w i t h l i t t l e gui dance as 22 Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

CompareTuto r-Salib a Corp. v. Cit y of Hailey , 4 5 2 F .3 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 4 (9 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6); 23 Quintana v. Je nne , 4 1 4F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 2 ( 1 1 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5); Ward v. Hickey , 996 F.2d 448 , 45 5-56 (1 stC ir

. 1 9 9 3); Cu rry v. A.H. Ro binsC o. , 7 7 5F .2 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 0 -2 1 ( 7 thC ir

. 1 9 8 5); Lotz Realt y C o. v. U n ited StatesDe

p'tof Ho u s. &U

rb anDe v. , 7 1 7F .2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 1 ( 4 thC ir

. 1 9 8 3) wi th Balmer v. HCA, I

nc. , 4 2 3F .3 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 6 -1 7( 6 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5); C olom b ri to v. K

el ly , 76 4 F .2d 1 22, 132(2d C ir

. 1 9 8 5).

Tutor-Saliba C

orp. , 4 5 2 F. 3d at 1064 ( quot ing Quintana , 41 4 F .3d at 1 312 ). The 24 courts in T

u tor-Salibaan d Quintanaad dr es s edsi t ua tio ns whe r e theno n- f rivol ous claims were ulti mat ely u n su cc es sf ul. See Tutor-Saliba C orp. , 4 5 2 F .3 d at 1 0 6 4 ; Quintana , 4 1 4F
. 3 dat 1312. Ho we ver, we holdthat the ultima te succe ss of a non- frivolous claimis not di sp os itive of whe therth e defendant is e ntitled to attorn ey s' fees on a frivolou s claim, particularly when th e re mainin gc laim s areno lo n geru n de r th e fe de ral co urt 'sj uri sdiction . SeeHead v . Medford , 62 F.3 d 351 , 356 (11th Cir. 199 5) (defen dant s pote ntiallyentitle d to attorney s' fee s on frivolous c ivilr ights clai ms whendistrict court declin es sup plemental jurisdictionover st ate -l aw claim s an d di smi sse s th em).

Tu tor -Sal ib a C

or p. , 452F .3d at 1 064 . Our holding is reinforced by dicta in Hensley , 25 where the Supre me C ourtstat ed th at a defendant mayrec over attor ne ys ' fee s incurre d in respon ding

to a frivolou s claim whe n a pl aintiff also brou ght u nrel ated and presumablynon8 to w h ic h is th e fi n a l d e t e r m in a n t. T h e r e a ls o a p p e a r s to b e n o F ifth C ir c u it pre c ede nt on w het hera def endant m ustpr evai lov eran ent i r e s ui tbe f or e t hat d e fe n d a n t m a y s e e k a tt o r n e y s ' fe e s o rw h e th e rs u c c e s s o n a n in d iv id u a l cla im is suff i ci en t
. I n deed , ot h er c i rcui t s app ear t o be spl i ton the i ssue. 23 H a vin g re view ed the oth er circu i ts' h oldin gs , w e a gr ee w i th the m aj ority of ci rcui t s t h at a defen da n tdoes not hav e t o prevai lover an en t i re s u i ti n order to r eco ve r a ttorn ey s' fee s for fri vo l ou s § 1 9 8 3 claim s. W e a gr ee w i th the N i n th
an d E l even t h C i rcui t s t h at " i tw ou l d ' u n derm i n e t h e i n t en tof C on gress t o al l ow pl ai n t i f fs t o prosecute f

ri vol ou s c l ai m s w i th ou tconsequ en ces m erel y becau se t h ose c l ai m s w ere j oi n ed' " w i t h add i t i o n a l n o n - f ri vol ou s c l ai m s. S u c h a ru le 24
w ou l d als o m ak e a d efen da n t ' s en t i t l em en tto at t orneys' f ees " dep en d n otup on t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s r evi ew of t h e m eri t s of

a pl ai n t i f

f' s § 1 983 cl ai m s, bu tup on h o w a p la in tiff

ch o s e to d r a ft h is co m p la in t." 25 Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

frivolou s claim s inth e sa mesuit

. See Hensley , 46 1 U .S. at 435 & n.10, 103S. Ct. at 194 0 & n.10
. C

f

. H e ns ley , 4 61 U.S. at 4 34-3 5, 1 03 S. C t. at 1 940(noting th at a pl aintiff may not 26 se ekf ee s f orwo rko n u n su cc es sf ul cl aim s th at are n ot re late d to th e pl aintiff 's§ 1 9 8 3c laim s)

. See Ward , 99 6F. 2 d at45 5 -5 6(notin gth at adis trict co urtmaynotd enyf ee s " b ec au se 27 calculationwo uldb e diff icult " or u se inte rr el ation of cl aim s a s gro u n ds "not to grant a nyf ee s" ). Hensley , 4 6 1 U .S

. at 4 3 6 -3 7 , 1 0 3S

. C t. at 1 9 4 1
. 28 Quintana , 41 4 F .3d at 1 312
. 29 9 H o w e v e r , e v e n th o u g h a d e fe n d a n t n e e d n o t p r e v a il o n a ll cla im s in a s u it t o be enti t l ed to att orneys' fees, a defenda n t i s on l y en t i t l ed t o att orneys' f ees f or w ork w h i ch can be di st i n ct l y t raced t o a pl ai n t i f f' s f ri vol ou s c l ai m s. I n asm u ch 26
as a n on - f

ri vol ou s cl ai m i n t h e sam e sui t can be t h e basi s f or th e w o rk of a de fe nda nt ' s a t t o r ne y, t he c o urt m us tc o ns i de rt he i nt e r r e l at e d na t ur e o f t he f ri vol ou s and non - f

ri vol ou s c l ai m s t o deter m i n e t h e app ropri ate f ee. W e 27 recogni ze t h at " [ t ] h ere i s no preci se ru le or f orm u l a f

or m ak i n g t h ese d e te r m i n a t i o n s ," a n d m u c h s h o u ld b e le ft t o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's e q u ita b le d is c r e tio n . N e v e r th e le s s , " w e a r e c o n fid e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ill b e a b le

28 p r o p e r ly to w e i g h a n d a s s e s s th e a m o u n t o f a tt o r n e y ' s fe e s a tt r ib u ta b le
e x c lu s iv e ly to [a p la in tiff' s ] fr iv o lo u s . . . cla im [s ]." 29 In i t s or der a w a rd ing A pp el l ees at t orneys' fees, t h e di st ri ctcourtnoted t hat" t he f

o c us o f b o t h pl ai nt i f

f a nd d e fe nda nt s w as pl ai nt i f f ’ s § 19 83 c l ai m . " The
c o u r ta ls o n o t e d in th e s e c o n d o r d e rth a t"d e fe n d a n t ’s [s ic ] r e q u e s tfo ra t t o r n e y ’s fee s r el at es onl y t o pro c ee di ngs bef or e t hi s c our t
. " Fi nal l y, t he c our tnot ed t hat

" D efen da n t ’ s [ si c] do n otapp ear t o request att orney’ s f ees r el ated t o t h e defen se o f th e state law cl a i m s rem a n d ed f or d ecisi on to t h e L ou i sian a state cou r t." B eca u se th e d i stri ct cou rt spe ci fi ca l l y re stri cted i ts aw a rd of a ttorn e y s ' fee s to Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

10 t h e pr o c e e di ngs be f

o r e i t , and be c aus e t he c o ur t f o und t hat Appe l l e e s di d n ot
see k attorn ey s' fee s f or th e d efen se o f th e sta te law cl a i m s, w e d o n ot f i n d i ts
awar d o f

a t t o r ne ys ' fe e s a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. I I I . C ONC L US I ON T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ' s o r d e rg r a n t i n gA p p e l l e e s a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s i s A F F I RMED. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

11 SO U TH W I C K , C i r c ui tJudge, di ss ent i ng. Th e m aj or i t y has abl y i dent i f i ed t he r el evantfac t s and di sc uss ed l egal i s s ue s t hata r i s e w i t h c l ai m s fo rat t o r ne ys ’fe e s . M y di s ag r e e m e nti s na r r o w , b ut i tha s c on sequ en ce i n t h i s c ase. I a gr e e w i t h t he m aj o r i t y t hatw e s ho u l d a f f i r m o n t he f

i ndi ng t hatt he pl ai n t i f f conti n u ed too l on g af t er i tbecam e cl ear t h at t h ere w as n o federal case. S o s o m e a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s s h o u ld b e r e i m b u r s e d

. T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t p r o p e r ly st ated t h at usua l l y a pa rt y seeki n g att orneys’ fees m u stal l ocat e t h e fees separatel y betw een t h e success f u lcl ai m s and t h e un successf u l

. T h at w as not d on e he r e b ec ause t he c l ai m s w er e f ound t o b e t oo i nt er r el at ed. I ti s att hat poi nt t hat I depar tf

r om t he r eas oni ng w e a r e a f f i r m i ng. The s t and ar d quo t e d by t he M ag i s t r at e J udg e w as t ak e n f r o m a pr e c e de nt t h at appli ed a T exas st atute t h at al l ow ed att orneys’ fees: T h e di st ri ct court di d not requ i re t h at F i l e- S t eel e segregate i t s f ees i n t o t h ose fees i n curred f or su cces sf

u lcl ai m s an d t h ose i n curred f or uns uc c e s s f

ulc l ai m s . I ns t e ad , t he c o ur tf o und t hatno s e gr egati on w as requir ed becau se t h e cl ai m s arose ou tof t h e sam e t ran sact i on an d w ere s o i n t errel ated t h at thei r p rosec u t i on or defense entai l ed p r o o f o rd e n ia l o f e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e fa c ts
. U.S

. fo r V

a r c o P r u d e n B ldg s . v . R e id & G a r y S tr ic k la n dCo ., 161 F
. 3d 915, 919 ( 5t h C i r . 1998)

. The r e l e va nt Tex as s t at ut e i n V arco au t h ori zed pa ym en tof fees fo rth e co lle c tio n o f a d e b t. T EX . C IV . P RA C
. R EM . C ODE A NN . § 38. 001 (V ernon 19 86 )

. The c o ur tf

o und an e xp l ana t i o n o f t hatfe e s t at ut e i n a s t at e de c i s i o n. V arco , 161 F. 3d at919 ( c i t i ng Flin t & A s s o c s . v . In te r c o n t’l P ip e & S te e l, In c ., 739 S .W .2d 6 2 2 ( T ex. A pp . - D al l as 198 7, w ri tden i ed))

. Th e Fl i ntc our ts t at ed t hat th e rec ov era b l e fees w ere on l y th ose n ece ssa ry for th e cl a i m for w h i ch the statu te
a u t h o r i z e d fe e s . Fl i nt , 7 39 S. W
. 2d a t6 24
. H o w e ve r , fe e s w e r e a l s o pe r m i t t ed Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

12 f or l egal servi ces “ rend ered i n con n e cti on w i t h al lcl ai m s, even i f rec overy of at t o r ne y fe e s i s no ta ut ho r i z e d f o r[ s o m e o f

t he ] c l ai m s , i f

t he y ar i s e o uto f

t he
sam e tra ns ac t i o n a nd a r e s o i nt e r r e l at e d t hatt he i rpr o s e c ut i o n o rde fe nse en tail s p roo f or d en i a lof ess en ti a l l y th e sa m e facts. ” I d. at624- 25. I f i nd t he M agi st r at e J udge e r r ed i n usi ng t hi s st andard f r om a de bt coll ection statu te f

or a l l ow i n g fees to a cred i tor, th en ap p l yin g iteq u i va l en tl y to pl ai n t i f fs an d d e fen da n t s i n civi lri gh t s c ases. C on gress w an t ed p l ai n t i f fs of l i m i t ed f

i n an ci alm ean s to bri n g m eri t ori ou s s u i t s and rec over t h ei r at t orneys’ fee s, w hi l e a l so per m i t t i ng def endant s t o r ec ove rfee s w hen t he ac t i on w as

“ f ri vol ou s, unr e as o nab l e , o rg r o undl e s s , ” o r , e ve n i f no ti ni t i al l y c l e ar , t he pl ai n t i f f conti n u ed to li tig a t e t h e case af t er i t s f

ri vol ou sness w as cl ear. Ch r i s t i a n s b u rg Ga r me n t Co

. v . EEO C , 434 U
. S

. 412 , 422 ( 197 8)

. N o such l i m i t at i o n woul d l i ke l y e xi s t , no rw as o ne m e nt i o ne d, i n V arco or Fl i nt
. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “th e sta n d a rd for a w a rd in ga tto rn e y s’ fee s d iff e rs if a d efen d a n t rath e r t h a n a p l a i n ti ff pr ev a i l s. ” W

hi t e v . So ut h Par k I nde p. Sc h. D i st
. , 6 9 3 F
. 2 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 9 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 2 )

. W e i n s t e a d a p p l y a “ m o r e r i g o r o us stan d a rd for a w a rd i n g a ttorn ey ’ s fees to p rev a i l i n g d efen d a n ts. ” D ean v. R i ser , 240 F. 3d 505, 508 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng C h ri st i an sbu rg , 4 3 4 U .S . a t 4 2 1 ). Th i s dem andi ng f

r am ew or k s t em s f

r om C ongr es s’ s adm oni t i on t hat pl ai nt i f fs i n c i vi l r i ght s ac t i o ns o c c upya uni que a nd p r o t e c t e d r o l e i n v i ndi c at i ng th e r ig h ts e n u m e r a te d in S e c tio n 1 9 8 3
. Se e D e an , 240 F. 3d at 507. Vi ew i ng a ci vi lri gh t s p l ai n t i f

f a s a “ pri vate a t t orney gen eral , ” w e do n otperm i taw ards of at t or neys ’fee s agai nsta c i vi lr i ght s pl ai nt i f f abs ent a sho w i ng t hat hi s sui tw as “ve xa ti ou s, f

ri vo l ou s, or oth erw i se w i th ou t m erit. ” Id . a t 5 0 8
. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

13 In t h e debt c ol l ect i on p re ce d e n tt h e M agis t rat e Ju dg e ci t ed, w e decl i n ed t o r e qui r e t he pl ai nt i f f t o s e gr e ga t e t he w o r k d on e in suppo r to f i t s s uc c e s s f

ul cl ai m s f rom i t s un successf

u lones becau se t h e w ork on each w as so i n t errel ated
a s n o t t o b e d iv is ib le

. V arco , 161 F
. 3d at 919
. Th e m aj ori t y h ere does not ref er t o t hat sa m e c as el aw , but i t i s t he l egals t andard us ed byt he M agi st r at e J udge af t erdec i di ng t hat the l egalw or k on t he var i ous c l ai m s c oul d notbe di s e nt ang l e d. As I w i l le xp l ai n, i n m y vi e w t hatw as e r r o ra nd i ta f fe c t e d t he
m anne ri n whi c h t he fac t s w e r e a nal yz e d. T h e V arco a p p roa ch i s sen sibl e w h en attorn ey s’f ee s ar e b ein g a w a rd ed to pl ai n t i f fs. Apl ai n t i f

f’ s co u n selm ay p erf orm l egal servi ces t h at s u pp ort
su cce ss f

ul and unsucc es sf

ul l egal t heor i es . W hen i t i s fac t ual l y i m pos sibl e t o a ll o ca t e t h e ser vi ces, requi ri n g a defend an tt o rei m bu rse t h em al lw i l lassure th a t a p l a i n ti ff

is re cov erin g w h a t w a s n ece ssa ry to b ri n g th e su i t, a p a ym en t t o w h i ch the pl ai n t i f

f i s enti t l ed. A n y art i f i ci aldi scoun tbecau se of t h e i n t errel ated
s e r v i c e s m a y l e a d t o l e s s t h a n t o t a l fe e r e i m b u r s e m e n t
. I n s u c h a c as e , t he
a p p roa ch o f th e T ex a s d eb t co l l ection s tatu te m a k es se n se b eca u se th e intere sts are t h e sam e – al l ow i n g a plai n t i f f f u l l y t o rec over, i n cl u di n g att orneys’ fees. O n t he o t he rha nd, w he n a de fe nda nt has s uc c e s s f ul l y fe nde d o f

f s o m e b ut
no ta l l cl ai m s as f

r i vo l o us , t he r e i s s t i l lo ne o rm o r e c l ai m s f o rw hi c h t he def endant h as notbe en f ound t o de se r ve any at t or neys ’fee s. The pl ai nt i f f m ay w e l l–i t has no tb e e n r e s o l ve d –b e e nt i t l e d t o b r i ng t ho s e c l ai m s . So l o ng as t he p l a i n ti ff

’ s rem a i n i n g cl a i m s ar e n ot f ou n d to be f

ri vo l ou s, n o reim b u rsem en t t o t h e defen da n tf

or t h e fees on t h ose c l ai m s i s p erm i ssibl e ev en if the pl ai n t i f

f does
no tpr e va i l

. Con s e que nt l y, w he n s o m e c l ai m s a r e di s m i s s e d a s f ri vol ou s a nd ot h ers are not, al l ow i n g a defend an tf u l lrec overy of h i s fees because the ser vi ces fo rth e v a r io u s cla im s a r e to o in te r r e la te d g iv e s to o m u c h

. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

14 I n s um m ar y, w he n wor k d o ne o n a pl ai nt i f f ’ s s uc c e s s f

ula nd u ns uc c e s s f

ul
c l ai m s i s c onf

usi ngl y i nt er r el at ed, notr equi r i ng at t or neys ’fee s aw ard ed to be
ar t i f i c i al l y s e gr e ga t e d av o i ds a n unfai rdi s c o unt
. Qui t e di f fe r e nt l y, us i ng i nt e r r e l at e dne s s as t h e re as o n no tt o s e gr e ga t e f e e s a w ar de d t o a de fe nda nt
c a u s e s a n in e q u it a b l e w i n d fa ll. S ee B l u m v. S t enson , 465 U
. S. 886, 893- 94 (1 9 8 4 ) (S e c tio n 1 9 8 8 s h o u ld n o t p r o d u c e w in d fa lls to a tt o r n e y s ). In t h e pr e s e ntc as e , i ta ppe ar s t hata l m o s ta l lt he de fe nda nt ’ s di s c o very and factu alanal ys i s w oul d have bee n nec es sa r y e ven i f no f ede r alc l ai m s had b e e n b r o u g h t
. G e n e r a l l y , t h e s a me w i t n e s s e s w o u l d b e d e p o s e d , t h e s a me doc um ent s pro duce d, and t he s am e fac t ualdi sput es r es olved

. O nl y t he l egal
w or k al l oc abl e s ol el y o rdom i nantl y t o t he di sm i ss ed f ede r alc l ai m s w as unn ec es sa r y. T h e sui tw i l l proceed n ow i n st ate court. If t h e st ate t o w h i ch a case such
as t hi s i s r e m and e d ha s a fe e - s hi f t i ng s t at ut e s i m i l ar t o Se c t i o n 1 98 8, a nd i f t he
s t at e c l ai m s pr o ve f r i vo l o us , t he de fe nda ntc an t he n r e c o ve rt he f e e s f o rt he
ove r l appi ng w or k per f or m ed i n fede r alc our t
. O nl y th en w i l li tbe know n t hat t he hi ghl y i nt e r r e l at e d l e ga ls e r vi c e s w e r e a l lo n g r o undl e s s c l ai m s . I f t he pl ai nt i f f pr e va i l s , t he n a l l he r e c o ve r s i s f o r t he l e ga lw o r k ne c e s s ar y t o s uc c e e d, pl us s uch f

ee s as w er e t oo i nt er r el at ed t o a l l oc at e w i t h t he di sm i ss ed f ede r al
c l ai m s. Fi nal l y, i f

t he pl ai nt i f

f l os es butat l eas tthe c l ai m s ar e not f ound t o b e gr ou n d l ess , n o on e rec eives an y fee re i m b u rsem en t. If t h ere i s no fee- shi f

t i n g st atute f

or t h e st ate l a w cl ai m s t h at operat es si m i l arl y t o S ect i on 1 988 , then this a pp roach st i l la voi ds a w i n dfal l

. W h en t h ere is n o s p e c ific a u th o r ity fo ra w a r d in gfe e s , e a c h p a r ty b e a r s it s o w n . W e w o u ld
on l y be en f

orci n g i n adv an ce t h e st ate’ s r ef u salt o shi f

tfees. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 31135

15 A ccor di n gl y, I w ou l d rej ectt h e M agis t rat e Ju dg e’ s app l i cat i on of t h e V arco stan d a rd to t h i s ca se. T h e m aj ority r e fe r s to an oth er p a rt of the M a gistrate Jud ge ’ s de c i s i o n i n whi c h sh e s t at e d t hatb o t h pa r t i e s f o c us e d t hr o ugh o ut l i t i gati on on the federal cl ai m . T h at f i n di n g does n ot af

fect m y vi ew t h at any fee f or servi ces by V i ce’ s coun sel t h at w as al so n ecess ary f or t h e st ate c l ai m s i s not
r e c o ve r ab l e , no m at t e rw hatt he f o c us o f c o uns e lm i ghtha ve b e e n. T h ere fore, I f

i n d an ab u se o f d i scre ti on by th e dist ri ct cou rt. See Merc ed
v . Kas s on , 5 7 7 F
. 3 d 5 78, 595 ( 5t h C i r . 2009)

. The onl y f ee s Fox s houl d be
r e qui r e d t o pa y ar e t ho s e s o l e l y ap pl i c ab l e t o hi s fe de r alc l ai m s . The de fe nda nt i s e nt i t l e d t o b e pa i d f o rt he l e ga ls e r vi c e s ne c e s s ar y t o r e m o ve t he a c t i o n a nd
no w t o a ddr e s s t he r e m and , a s w e l la s a ny s e r vi c e s uni qu el y ar i s i ng f r o m t he l egalw or k t o have th e Sec t i on 1983 c l ai m s di sm i ss ed. I f t hos e c annot be
s e gr e ga t e d f

r o m t he o t he rfe e s , t he n i tw o ul d app e art he de fe nda nt ’ s f e e r e c o r ds are suspect. I f

t h at m u ch can be show n bu tno other di vi si on can be m ad e, t h en I w o u ld e n d th e a w a r d th e r e . R equ i ri n g al li n t errel ated fees t o be rei m bu rsed i n t rud es on t h e r igh tof
a c i vi lr i ght ’ s pl ai nt i f f t o b r i ng a non- f

r i vol ous c l ai m w i t hout havi ng t o pay a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s to th e d e fe n s e e v e n w h e n th e ca s e is u n s u c c e s s fu l. I resp ectfull y d i sse n t. Case: 08-31135 Document: 00511007221 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/19/2010