2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-5-2004 

# B u s s v . Qui g g P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-4053

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B us s v . Qui gg " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1023. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1023NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_______________ No: 02-4053

_______________ *MA RIA T. BUS S, Indi vidually and as Administr atri x for the Estate of Cyr il F. Buss , Sr . Decea sed; DANA BUSS

v. JOHN QUI GG, Cor

poral ; C APTAIN LNU; LI EUTENANT LNU; SERGE ANT LNU, Corporal J ohn Quigg, Appellant (*Amended per Clerk' s Order on 12/5/02)

_______________ App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Civi l Action No. 01-cv-03908 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Berl e M. Schill er

_______________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on December 19, 2003 Be for e: R OT H a nd M cK EE , Circuit Judges CU DA HY *, Circuit

Judge (Opinion filed: February

5, 2004)
* H ono rable R ichard D. C udah y, Circuit C ourt Ju dge for the S even th Circ uit, sitting by designation.2 O P I N I O N
RO TH , Circuit

Judge : M aria T . Bus s, suing on b ehalf of h erself, th e estate of h er late h usba nd, an d their daughter, brought a 42 U.S. C. § 1983 acti on in the United State s District Court for the Eastern Dis tri ct of Pennsylvania against Pennsylvania State Poli ce CorporalJohn Quigg and three unnamed supervis ing offi cers. Buss’s cl aims agai nst Quigg i ncluded i nvasion of privacy, assault and batter y, use of excessi ve force, ill egal detention, fal se arrest, arrest without pr obable caus e, arrest and det ention wit hout due proce ss, unl awful entr y, and false imprisonment. As to the unnamed super visi ng officer s, Buss cl aimed that they had fail ed to adequat ely

train, super

vise and t ake remedialacti on against Quigg. The District Cou rt granted sum mary judgm ent in favo r of Q uigg all claims ex cept for un lawfu l entry and excessi ve force. Buss subsequent ly abandoned her cl aims agai nst t he three unnamed supervi sing offi cers. A juryfound that Quigg had unlawfull y ent ered the Buss home but that he had n ot use d exc essive force . The jury did no t awa rd an y dama ges to plaintiff s in spit e of it s findi ng because of an er ror i n the Dist

rict Court’s instruc tions . The District Court sought

to rectify

this error

by gr anting pl ainti ffs nominaldamages of one doll ar each. Purs uant to 42 U. S.C. § 1988, the Dist rict Court als o awarded Buss, as the1 W e no te tha t Bu ss o rigin ally sou ght $35 ,560 in att orn eys fe es a nd $ 7,97 9 in cos ts.

The Distri ct Court r educed the at torney s fees t o deduct 4. 5 hours spent on non-legal work; the Dis tri ct Court a lso al lowed only $3,479 in c osts, excludi ng $4,500 in noncompensable expert fees. 3 prev ailing p arty, $34,6 60 in attorne y’s fees a nd $ 3,479 in cos ts 1 . Qu igg n ow appe als argu ing tha t Fa rra r v. H obb y, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) , prevents civilright s plai ntiff s, who obt ain o nly no min al da ma ges on o ne o f m ultip le cla ims , fro m re ceiv ing attor neys fees . Altern atively, Qu igg arg ues th at the D istrict Co urt abu sed its d iscretion in refu sing to reduce the fee award for limited success. We have juris dicti on of this appeal pur suant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review an
aw ard of a ttorn ey’s fe es f or a bus e of

disc retio n. General Inst rument Corp. v. Nu-Tek Elecs. & Mfg. , 197 F .3d 83 , 91 (3 d C ir. 1999 ). The “que stion o f w hat stan dard s to ap ply in calculating an award o f attorney ’s fees is a legalquestion, and therefore we exercise plenary review over t

his i ssue. ” Id. (quoti ng Washington v. Philadel phia County Ct. of Comm on Pleas , 89 F.3d 1 031, 103 4-35 (3d Cir. 1996 )). When assessing whether a pla inti ff who has won only nominaldamages may reasonably be awarded f ees, cour ts l ook to the “ degree of succ ess obta ined. ” Farrarat 114. “[W]hen a pla inti ff recover s only nominal damages bec ause of his fail ure to pr ove
an es sential e leme nt of h is claim for m oneta ry dama ges, the only reas onab le fee is usua lly no fee at al l.” Id. at 115. Justi ce O’Connor’s concur rence i n Farraralso poi nted to t hree relevant indi cia of suc cess: the ext ent of re lief , the signi ficance of t

he legalissue on4

wh ich th e pla intiff pr eva iled, a nd t he p ubl ic pu rpo se se rve d by th e litig ation
. Id. at 122. When consideri ng the rea sonablenes s of an award of attorney s fees, the amount awarded “should r eflect the ext ent to whic h the litigant was successful .” Washington , 89 F.3d at 1043 ( citing Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983) (s tating “[a] reduc ed fee award is a

ppropri ate i f the re lief

, however si gnific ant, is l imit ed in compari son to the scope o f the litigation as a w hole.”)). Turning to the merits of Q uigg’s first argum ent, we ag ree with the D istrict Court that, a ltho ugh the p laint iffs wo n on ly a pa rtial v ictor y, they w ere th e pr eva iling par ty. The determination t

hat Buss and her

family acted r ightly i n defending t heir Fourth and Fourteen th Am endm ent rights is significant relief und er Farrar . This is especial ly s o when coupled with t

he legalsigni ficance of unreasonable search and s eizure and the public purp ose of d eterring such b ehavior. W e conclud e also that the illegal entry component was a central el ement of Buss’s clai m. For thes e reasons , we agree wit h the Distric t Cou rt in find ing tha t Bus s did a chiev e a sign ifican t degre e of s ucce ss in prosecut ing her cl aim and that Buss could re cover attorney s fees i n spit e of the nominal damages she rec eived. As to Qu igg’s a lternativ e argu men t that the D istrict Co urt abu sed its d iscretion in refusi ng to adjus t the f

ee award for l imit ed success , we note t hat Buss’s successf

ul and
un su cc es sf

ul cla im s a ris e o ut of

a c om m on co re of

fa cts – Q ui gg ’s u nl aw fu l en try – “making it

diffi cult to divide t

he hours expended on a clai m-by- clai m basis. ” Hensley ,5

461 U.S. at 435. Quigg correctly points out, however, that reducti ons may be in order for parti al succe ss “even where t he plai ntiff

s’ cl aims were inter-r elat ed, nonfrivolous, and rais ed in good fai th.” Id. at 436. In this case, B uss succee ded on ly on the unlaw ful entry claim. Com paring that suc cess to the scop e of the litigation as a w hole, Qu igg’s argument i s not ent irely wit hout merit . Yet “when the t rialcourt appl ies t

he correc t lega l standar d, the court has discr etion in determi ning the a ctual[att orney s] fees award.” Abrams v. Lightolier

, Inc ., 50 F. 3d 1204, 1222 (3d Cir . 1995) ( citing Hensley 461 U.S. at 437 ; Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp. , 829 F.2d 367, 378 (3d Cir. 1987)). Based on our review of the record, it i s evident that t he dist rict judge car efull y cons idered t he clai ms on which Bu ss did not succeed and made a reasoned judgm ent that the time spent on these clai ms did not j usti fy a r educti on in the f ees award. We therefore conclude that the Distri ct Court di d not abuse i ts di scret ion in t he amount of attorney s fees awarded . For th e reaso ns state d abo ve, w e w ill affirm the jud gm ent of the D istrict Co urt.

TO THE CLERK OF COU RT: Please fi le the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit

Judge