### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-51236

TONY SMITH,

Plaintiff – Appellant

v.

HUBERT ARTURO ACEVEDO, also known as Art Acevedo, In his official capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Austin and in his personal capacity; MIKE CRONIG, In his official capacity as Assistant City Attorney of the City of Austin and in his personal capacity; CITY OF AUSTIN,

Defendants – Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:09-CV-620

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tony Smith (“Smith”) brought this §1983 suit claiming that defendants:

(1) wrongfully terminated him as an Austin, Te x a s p o l ice officer based on an

unconstitutional Austin Polic e D e p a r t m e n t ( “ A P D ” ) G e n e r a l Order

[A201.04(G)(2)]; (2) retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment

rights; (3) deprived hi m o f h i s “ l iberty and property rights,” in violation of § U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D
May24 , 20 12

Lyle W . Cayce
Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5

, the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not *

be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

1983; (4) co m m i tted the Texas state tort of defamation; and (5) conspired

together to slander him. The parties t h e n f i led cross-motions for summary

judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smith with

re s pect to his claim that the APD General Order A201.04(G)(2) was an

unconstitutional prior restraint of free speech. T h e d istrict co u rt o th e r w ise

d e n ie d S m ith ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a n d g ra n te d th e d e fe n d a n ts’

m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a ll re m a in in g cla im s. Smith now appeals.

F A C T S A N D P R O C E D U R A L H IS T O R Y

I. F a ctu a l B a ck g ro u n d

S m ith is a fo rm e r p o lice o ffice r fo r th e C ity o f A u stin

, T e x a s (“th e C ity ”),

w h o w a s te rm in a te d fo r in su b o rd in a tio n , u n d e rm in in g th e C h ie f o f P o l i c e ’ s

a u th o rity

, a n d m isu sin g th e C ity co m p u te rs. I n p a rt, S m ith ’s te rm in a tio n

re su lte d fro m h is 2 0 0 5 a g re e d u p o n a n d n o n -a p p e a la b le 6 0 -d a y su sp e n sio n fo r

v a rio u s v io la tio n s o f A P D G e n e ra l O rd e rs. A s d e scrib e d b e lo w , m a n y o f th e

fa cts o f th is ca se a re u n d isp u te d a n d w e re p re se n te d in a q u a si-ju d icia l

p o st-te rm in a tio n a p p e a l h e a rin g co n d u cte d b y a n in d e p e n d e n t h e a rin g

e x a m in e r.

O n M a y 3 0

, 2 0 0 8

, C h ie f H u b e rt A ce v e d o (“A ce v e d o ”) te rm in a te d A P D

S e rg e a n t D u stin L e e a n d issu e d a m e m o ra n d u m e x p la in in g th a t L e e h a d b e e n

te rm in a te d fo r se x u a l h a ra ssm e n t a n d d ish o n e sty

. T h re e d a y s la te r, S m ith w a s

se rv in g a s a p a tr o l o f

f i c e r o n th e e v e n in g sh ift b a se d o u t o f th e C e n tra l E a st

S u b sta tio n in A u stin

, T e x a s, w h e n h e o v e rh e a rd se v e ra l o th e r o f f i ce rs

d iscu ssin g L e e ’ s t e r m i n a tio n

. D u rin g th is d iscu ssio n , S m ith re ca lle d re a d in g

a n e w sp a p e r a rticle in d i c a t i n g th a t A ce v e d o h a d b e e n a ccu se d o f se x u a l

h a ra ssm e n t a t a fo rm e r jo b

. B e ca u se S m ith b e lie v e d i t w a s “iro n ic” th a t

Ac ev e d o h a d p re v io u sly b e e n a ccu se d o f se x u a l h a ra ssm e n t, b u t h a d te rmi nat ed

L e e , S m ith w e n t in to th e “sh o w -d o w n ” ro o m to u se a C ity co m p u te r to co n d u ct

2 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

a d d itio n a l re se a rch in to th e a lle g a tio n s a g a in st A ce v e d o

. W h ile re se a rch in g , 1

S m ith fo u n d a w e b site th a t co n ta in e d p o te n tia lly e m b a rra ssin g a l l e g a t io n s

a g a in st A ce v e d o , co p ie d th a t in fo rm a tio n to a w o rd d o cu m e n t, a n d p rin te d th e

d o cu m e n t fro m a C i t y p rin te r. S m ith th e n sh o w e d th e d o cu m e n t to O ffice rs

A n d e rso n a n d J u ste se n

. U p o n sh o w in g A n d e rso n th e d o cu m e n t, S m ith

q u e stio n e d : “H o w is A ce v e d o g o in g to t e r m i n a te L e e w h e n h e d id th e sa m e

th in g ?” 2

L a te r, S m ith p o ste d th e d o cu m e n t o n th e b u lle tin b o a r d i n t h e “sh o w

d o w n ” ro o m , w h e re it co u ld b e v ie w e d b y o ffice rs o f e v e ry p a tro l sh ift. S m ith

a ck n o w le d g e d th a t th e a lle g a tio n s co n ta in e d in th e d o cu m e n t w e re p o te n tia lly

p e rso n a l a n d h ig h ly e m b a rra ssin g to A ce v e d o , a n d t h a t h e d id n o t k n o w

w h e th e r th e a lle g a tio n s w e re tru e . A t th e co n clu sio n o f th e e v e n in g sh ift (th e

n e x t m o rn in g ), O ffice r J a m e s P u rce ll n o tice d t h e d o cu m e n t a n d re p o rte d

S m ith ’ s a c tio n s to S e rg e a n t S la te r, a su p e rv iso r o f a n o th e r sh ift. S e rg e a n t

S la te r r e p o r t e d th e in cid e n t u p th e ch a in o f co m m a n d to C o m m a n d e r R o b

G a m b le

. B e lie v in g th a t th e in cid e n t w a s a v io la tio n o f A P D ’s G e n e ra l O rd e rs,

C o m m a n d e r G a m b le in itia te d a n In te rn a l A ffa irs (“IA ”) co m p la in t a g a in st

S m ith

. O n J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 0 8

, S m ith sig n e d a m e m o r a n d u m a ck n o w le d g in g h is

re ce ip t o f th e IA co m p la in t.

A fte r co n d u ctin g a n in v e stig a tio n , IA se n t a n “In v e stig a tiv e S u m m a ry ”

m e m o ra n d u m to A ce v e d o o n A u g u st 6

, 2 0 0 8

. A cco rd in g to th e In v e stig a tiv e

S u m m a ry , IA in te rv ie w e d S m ith

, P u rce ll, a n d J u ste se n , a n d re ce iv e d w ritte n 3

sta te m e n ts fro m S e rg e a n t S la te r a n d A n d e rso n

. T h e In v e stig a tiv e S u m m a ry

The “s how -d ow n” r o o m i s w h e r e off icer s ret urn to aft er thei r res pec tive shi ft s and 1

dr aft r epo rts and t urn in evide nce.

It is not exact ly clea r wh at Sm ith sai d, b ut both par tie s cit e to fac ts that indi cat e 2

Sm ith sai d so me thing along thes e l ines

.

Sm ith wa s rep res ente d by c ouns el dur ing t he IA int ervie w. 3

3 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

co n clu d e d b y re co m m e n d in g th a t th e a lle g a tio n s a g a in st S m ith b e su sta in e d fo r

(1 ) v io la tio n o f A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 3 1 2 .0 3 (A )(1 ), fo r im p ro p e r co m p u te r u se ;

a n d (2 ) v io la tio n o f A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ), fo r criticizin g th e A P D

in a w a y th a t w a s d e fa m a to ry a n d u n d e rm in e d its e ffe ctiv e n e ss.

O n A u g u st 2 7

, 2 0 0 8

, A P D co n d u cte d a D iscip lin a ry R e v ie w H e a rin g

(“D R H ”). B e ca u se A ce v e d o w a s in v o lv e d in th e su b je ct m a tte r o f th e co m p la in t,

A ce v e d o re cu se d h im se lf a n d a p p o in te d A ssista n t C h ie f H o lt. P rio r to th e D R H

,
S m i t h a n d h is a tto rn e y w e re a b le to re v ie w th e ch a rg e s a n d e v id e n ce a g a in st

h im

.
A t th e o u tse t o f th e D R H

, S m ith w a s a d v ise d th a t A ce v e d o , a s C h ie f o f

P o lice

, w a s co n sid e rin g a d d in g a n a d d itio n a l a lle g a tio n o f in su b o rd in a tio n

a g a in st h im

. D u rin g th e D R H

, S m ith w a s p ro v id e d th e o p p o rtu n ity to a n sw e r

4

q u e stio n s a n d m a k e sta te m e n ts. H e d id b o th

. S m ith a lso su b m itte d a w ritte n

sta te m e n t w h e r e i n h e a d m itte d

, “I u n d e rsta n d th a t so m e o f m y a ctio n s w e re

v io la tio n s o f d e p a rtm e n t p o licy .” A t th e co n clu sio n o f th e D R H

, S e rg e a n t

H ig h to w e r, L ie u te n a n t R o sc h

, a n d C o m m a n d e r G a m b le (co lle ctiv e ly “S m ith ’s

ch a in o f co m m a n d ”) re co mmended t o Ac evedo t hat al l alle g a tio n s, in clu d in g th e 5

a d d itio n a l a lle g a tio n o f in su b o rd in a tio n , b e su sta in e d a g a in st S m ith

. A ce v e d o 6

a g re e d w ith th e re co m m e n d a tio n a n d su sta in e d a ll o f th e a lle g a ti o n s a g a in st

S m ith

.

Altho ugh the rec ord doe s not indi cat e the sp ecif ic bas is for this rec om me ndat ion, APD 4
pol icy def

ines ins ubor dina tio n as "[ d] efyin g the autho rit y of any sup ervis or by obvious

dis res pec t, arr ogant or dis res pec tf ul language or cond uct

, rid icule

, or bold chall enge to ord ers iss ued. " APD G ener al Or der A201 .04( E)( 2).

“Chain of com man d” is use d thr oughout the par tie s’ brie fs in ord er to des cr i b e an 5

off icer ’s s uper viso rs

.

Altho ugh Aceved o coul d rec use him se lf fr om att endi ng the DRH

, he coul d not rec use 6

him se lf fr om mak ing the fina l dis cip linar y dec isi on. Acco rd ing to Texas civil se rvice law

, the pol ice chie f has the so le autho rit y to sus pend or ter mi nate pol ice off icer s. See T E X

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 143. 052( b).

4 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

A fte r th e D R H

, A ce v e d o o ffe re d S m ith th e o p p o rtu n ity to re sig n o r to ta k e

a 3 0 -d a y u n p a id su sp e n sio n in lie u o f te rm in a tio n

. S m ith d e clin e d b o th o ffe rs.

H o w e v e r, S m ith ’s ch a i n o f co m m a n d h a d re co m m e n d e d th a t S m ith b e

te rm in a te d

. B e fo re d e cid in g th e a p p ro p ria te d iscip lin a ry a ctio n , b o th S m ith ’s

ch a in o f co m m a n d a n d A ce v e d o re v ie w e d S m ith ’s w o rk h isto ry

.
O n S e p te m b e r 1 0

, 2 0 0 8

, A ce v e d o i s s u e d a m e m o ra n d u m (“2 0 0 8

m e m o ra n d u m ”), d ra fte d b y M ik e C ro n ig (“C ro n ig ”), te rm in a tin g S m ith

.
A cco rd in g to th e 2 0 0 8 m e m o ra n d u m , S m ith ’s te rm in a tio n w a s b a se d in -p a rt o n

a 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m , w h ich in d ica te d th a t S m ith h a d b e e n su sp e n d e d fo r six ty

d a y s fo r v io la tin g fiv e A P D ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s. S p e cifica l l y , t h e 2 0 0 5

m e m o ra n d u m in d ica te d th a t S m ith v io l a t e d : (1 ) A 2 0 1 .0 2 (H )(1 ), “A sso cia tin g

w ith P e rso n s o f B a d R e p u ta tio n s” ; (2 ) A 2 0 1 .0 3 (E )(3 )(d ) & (e ), “U n e th ica l

In te rfe re n c e w i t h In v e stig a tio n o f L e g a l P ro ce ss”; (3 ) A 2 0 1 .0 1 (C )(1 ) & (2 ),

co m m ittin g T e x a s sta te la w crim e s o f crim in a l co n sp ir a cy a n d m o n e y

la u n d e rin g ; (4 ) A 2 0 1 .0 4 (E )(1 ), fo r in su b o rd in a tio n ; a n d (5 ) A 3 1 2 .0 3 (A )(1 ), fo r

u n a u th o rize d co m p u te r u se

. T h e 2 0 0 8 m e m o ra n d u m a ck n o w le d g e d th a t 7

S m ith sig n e d th e 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m a ck n o w le d g in g th e re ce ip t o f t h e 2 0 0 5

m e m o r a n d u m a n d h is u n d e rsta n d in g th a t h e fo rfe ite d h is rig h t to a p p e a l th e

6 0 -d a y su sp e n sio n in re tu rn fo r th e th e n -C h ie f o f P o lice K n e e n o t e x e rcisin g h is

rig h t to te rm in a te S m it h f o r th e v io la tio n s. B a se d o n S m ith ’s co n d u ct a s

re p o rte d in th e 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m a n d th e 2 0 0 8 A P D v io la tio n s, A ce v e d o

sig n e d th e 2 0 0 8 m e m o ra n d u m te rm in a tin g S m ith

.

In 2005, Sm ith e nter ed into an agree d 60-d ay unpai d sus pens ion for cond uct 7

ass ocia ted wi th his se xual rela tio nshi p wi th a kn ow n use r of me tham phet ami ne. Du ring the

rela tio nshi p, Sm ith use d APD com put ers to cond uct wa rra nt se arc hes on his par amo ur at her

re q u e s t

, fai led to arr es t or det ain his par amo ur aft er he belie ved she had pur chas ed dr ugs, advis ed his par amo ur that she coul d conc eal a dr ug tra nsa cti on by obta ini n g a rec eip t for

clea ning s ervic es f

rom he r dr ug d ealer

, and co ntinu ed to see his param our des pit e h is chain
of com man d's d irec tive to ter mi nate t he rela tio nshi p.

5 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

S o o n a fte r h is 2 0 0 8 te rm in a tio n , S m ith e x e rcise d h is rig h t to a p p e a l to a n

in d e p e n d e n t h e a rin g e x ami ner

. S m ith w a s re p re se n te d b y a la w y e r th ro u g h o u t

th e e n tire a p p e a l p ro ce ss. B o th p a rtie s w e r e a b le to p re se n t d o cu m e n ta ry

e v i d e n ce , su b p o e n a w itn e sse s, e x a m in e a n d cro ss-e x a m in e w itn e sse s, m a k e

e v id e n t i ar y obj ec t i ons t o t he hear i ng ex a m in e r, a n d p re se n t o p e n in g sta te m e n ts

a n d clo sin g a rg u m e n ts. M o re o v e r, w itn e sse s w e re p la ce d u n d e r o a th

, th e ru le 8

w a s in v o k e d , a n d a tra n scrip t w a s m a d e o f th e p ro ce e d in g s.

O n May 4, 20 0 9

, th e h e a rin g e x a m in e r issu e d a w ritte n o p in io n u p h o ld in g

A ce v e d o ’s d e cisio n to te rm in a te S m ith b a se d o n h is fin d in g th a t S m ith v io la te d

a ll th re e o f th e cite d A P D G e n e ra l O rd e rs, a s w e ll a s h is fin d in g th a t th e 2 0 0 5

d iscip lin e h a d fa ile d to co rre ct S m ith ’s co n d u ct. Bec aus e S m ith co u ld n o t a p p e a l

th e h e a rin g e x a m in e r’s d e cisio n to a T e x a s sta te co u rt, see T E X

. L O C

. G O V ’ T

C O D E § 1 4 3 .0 5 7 (j), S m i t h f i l e d th is su it in th e D istrict C o u rt fo r th e W e ste rn

D istrict o f T e x a s, A u stin D iv isio n

.

II. P ro ced u ra l B a ck g ro u n d

O n A u g u st 1 4

, 2 0 0 9

, S m ith b ro u g h t su it a g a in st d e fe n d a n ts A ce v e d o ,
C ro n ig , a n d th e C ity (co lle ctiv e ly “th e d e fe n d a n ts”), a lle g in g th a t: (1 ) A ce v e d o

a n d C ro n ig d e n ie d h im h is d u e p ro ce ss rig h ts, in v io la tio n o f 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 3 ;

(2 ) A ce v e d o a n d C ro n ig w ro n g fu lly re ta lia te d a g a in st h im b y te rm i n a tin g h is

e m p lo y m e n t a s a n A u stin P o l i c e O f fice r fo r e x e rcisin g h is F irst A m e n d m e n t

rig h ts; (3 ) th e C ity h a s a p o licy th a t im p o se s a p rio r re stra in t o n fre e sp e e ch in

v io la tio n o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t; (4 ) d e fe n d a n ts co m m itte d th e sta te la w to rt

o f d e fa m a tio n a g a in st h im ; a n d (5 ) d e fe n d a n ts co n sp ire d to sla n d e r h im

. T h e

def endant s t i mel y ans wer ed S m ith ’s co m p la in t, d e n ie d th e cla im s a g a in st t hem,

a n d a sse rte d se v e ra l a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se s

. S p e cifica lly

, A ce v e d o a n d C ro n ig

Altho ugh t here is no r efe renc e t o the sp ecif ic rule in vok ed, w e c an a ss ume t hat the 8

par tie s we re ref

err ing to the exclus ion of w i t n e s s e s f rom the hear ing unde r Fede ral Rule of

Evidenc e 6 15 b ecau se t his is in t he cont ext of a he aring wh ere w itne ss es w ere exam ined

.

6 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

a sse rt, in ter a lia

, th a t th e y a re e n t i t l e d t o q u a lifie d im m u n ity fo r S m ith ’s

fe d e ra l cla im s, a n d o fficia l im m u n ity fo r S m i t h ’ s sta te la w d e fa m a tio n a n d

sla n d e r cla im s. T h e C ity a sse rts th a t it is e n title d to so v e re ig n o r g o v e rn m e n ta l

im m u n ity

.
O n A u g u st 2

, 2 0 1 0

, th e d e fe n d a n ts file d th e ir m o tio n fo r su m m a ry

ju d g m e n t. S m ith th e n file d h is m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A fte r re v ie w in g

th e p a rtie s’ m o tio n s, th e d istri c t co u rt g ra n te d S m ith ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry

ju d g m e n t w ith re sp e ct to h is cla im th a t A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ),

p ro h ib itin g criticism o f th e d e p a rtm e n ts, is a n u n co n stitu tio n a l p rio r re stra in t

o n fre e sp e e ch

. T h e d istrict co u rt o th e rw ise d e n ie d S m ith ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry

ju d g m e n t, a n d g ra n te d th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n fo r su m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n a ll

re m a in in g cla im s.

O n S e p te m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 0

, th e d i s t r i c t co u rt e n te re d its fin a l ju d g m e n t,

a w a rd in g S m ith n o m in a l d a m a g e s in th e a m o u n t o f o n e d o lla r , p lu s a ll co sts,

w ith re sp e ct to h is cla im th a t A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ) is a fa cia lly

u n co n stitu tio n a l p rio r re stra in t o f fre e sp e e ch

. In a d d itio n , t h e d istrict co u rt

e n te re d its fin a l ju d g m e n t fo r th e d e fe n d a n ts o n a ll re m a in in g cla im s a n d ta x e d

a ll co sts o f d e fe n d in g th e su it a g a in st S m ith

.
Ther eaf t er , Smi t h f

i l ed t wo mot i ons fo r re co n sid e ra tio n

. T h e d istrict co u rt

d e n ie d b o th

. A g g rie v e d b y th e d istrict co u rt’ s f i n a l ju d g m e n t, S m ith tim e ly

a p p e a le d

.
S T A N D A R D O F R E V IE W

W e re v ie w a d istrict co u rt's g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o , a p p ly in g

th e sa m e le g a l sta n d a rd s a s th e d istrict co u rt. U n ited S ta tes v

. C a rem a rk

, In c. ,

6 4 3 F .3 d 8 0 8

, 8 1 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 1 1 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t sh o u ld b e g r a n t e d if

“th e re is n o g e n u in e d isp u te a s to a n y m a te ria l fa ct a n d th e m o v a n t is e n title d

to ju d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f la w .” F E D .R .C I V .P

. 5 6 (a ). A g e n u in e issu e o f

7 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

m a te ria l fa ct e x ists w h e n th e e v id e n ce is su ch th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ry co u ld

re tu rn a v e rd ict fo r th e n o n -m o v a n t. A n d erso n v

. L ib erty L o b b y , In c. , 4 7 7 U .S

.

2 4 2

, 2 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ). “[A ]ll fa cts a n d e v id e n ce m u st b e ta k e n in th e lig h t m o s t

fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t.” L eM a rie v

. L a

. D ep ’t o f T

ra n sp

. & D ev

. , 4 8 0 F .3 d

3 8 3

, 3 8 7 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T o a v o id su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, h o w e v e r, th e

n o n -m o v a n t m u st g o b e y o n d th e p le a d in g s a n d co m e fo rw a rd w ith sp e cific fa cts

in d ica tin g a g e n u in e issu e fo r tria l. P ia zza ’s S ea fo o d W o rld

, L L C v

. O d o m , 4 4 8

F

. 3 d 7 4 4

, 7 5 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h is co u rt is “n o t lim ite d to th e d istrict co u rt's

re a so n s fo r its g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t” a n d “m a y a ffirm th e d istrict co u rt's

su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a n y g ro u n d ra ise d b e lo w a n d su p p o rte d b y th e re co rd

. ”

A ry a in v . W

a l-M a rt S to res T

ex . L P , 5 3 4 F .3 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).

D IS C U S S IO N

O n a p p e a l, S m ith ra ise s fo u r issu e s ch a lle n g in g th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd e r

g ra n tin g in -p a rt a n d d e n y i n g in -p a rt th e p a rtie s’ m o tio n s fo r su m m a ry

ju d g m e n t. S m ith cla im s th e d istri c t c o u r t e rre d in h o ld in g th a t: (1 ) S m ith

su ffe re d “n o a ctu a l d a m a g e ” w ith re sp e ct to h is cla im th a t A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r

A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ) co n stitu te d a n u n co n stitu tio n a l p rio r re stra in t o f h is rig h t to fre e

sp e e ch ; (2 ) a n o ffice r is g u ilty o f in su b o rd in a tio n w h e n th a t o ffice r d e fie s a ru le

o r re g u la tio n th a t is la te r d e te rm i n e d to b e u n co n stitu tio n a l; (3 ) A ce v e d o a n d

C ro n ig w e re e n title d to q u a lifie d im m u n ity ; a n d (4 ) S m ith w a s e n title d o n ly to

$ 2 5 0 0 .0 0 in a tto rn e y ’s fe e s.

I. A ctu a l H

a rm

S m ith cla im s th a t th e d istrict co u rt e rre d in h o ld in g th a t h e su ffe re d “n o

a ctu a l h a rm ,” d e sp ite th e d istrict co u rt’s fin d in g th a t A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r

A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ), p ro h ib itin g cr iticism o f th e d e p a rtm e n t, co n stitu te d a n

u n co n stitu tio n a l p rio r re stra i n t o n fre e sp e e ch

, in v io la tio n o f th e F irst

A m e n d m e n t. In o th e r w o rd s, S m ith a sse rts, b u t fo r v io la tin g a n A P D G e n e ra l

8 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

O rd e r th a t w a s la te r d e te rm in e d to b e u n co n stitu tio n a l, h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n

te rm in a te d

. F u rth e rm o re , S m ith sta te s th a t th e d istrict co u rt’s re lia n ce o n h is

sta te m e n t

– “T h e re a so n s fo r th e d iscip lin a ry a ctio n

. . . w e re in su b o rd in a tio n ,
criticism o f A ce v e d o , a n d u n a u th o rize d co m p u te r u se

. A n y o f th e se in fra ctio n s

co u ld h a v e re su lte d in P la in tiff’s te rm in a tio n ”

– w a s e rro n e o u s b e ca u se h e w a s

te rm in a te d b a se d p rim a rily o n criticizin g A ce v e d o , th e v io la tio n th a t w a s la te r

d e te rm in e d to b e u n co n stitu tio n a l a s a p rio r re stra in t o n fre e sp e e ch

.

T o th e co n tra ry , d e fe n d a n ts cla im th a t “A c e v e d o co u ld h a v e , a n d d id in

fa ct, te rm in a te S m ith fo r v io la tio n s o f o th e r a p p lica b le [A P D ] G e n e ra l O rd e rs

a s w e ll a s h is p rio r d iscip lin a ry h isto ry .” D e fe n d a n ts p rim a rily re ly o n th e 2 0 0 8

m e m o ra n d u m w h ich fo cu se s o n S m ith ’s co n d u ct a s a w h o le ; n o t o n th e fa ct th a t

S m ith v io la te d a p a rticu la r A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r. T h is in clu d e d “S m ith ’s w o rk

p e rfo rm a n ce , h is d iscip lin a ry h isto ry , h is p re se n ta tio n to In te rn a l A ffa irs a n d

th e [D R H ], h is w o rk in g re la tio n sh ip w ith h is p e e rs, h is u n t ru th fu ln e ss, h is

a tte m p ts to m itig a te h is tru e cu lp a b ility

. . . [a n d ] S m ith ’s su sta in e d v io la tio n s,

e s p e cia lly h is 2 0 0 5 co n d u ct

. . . .” T h e d e fe n d a n ts a lso cite to th e D R H ’ s

in d e p e n d e n t h e a rin g o ffice r’s o p in io n in w h ich th e h e a rin g o ffice r sta te d :

T h e 2 0 0 5 a g re e d su sp e n sio n w a s fo r v e ry se rio u s m isco n d u ct. T h e

m isco n d u ct in th is ca se is a lso se rio u s. B e ca u se th e co m p u te r a n d

in su b o rd in a tio n ch a rg e s a re su sta in e d in b o th ca se s, it is a p p a re n t
th a t th e p rio r d iscip lin e d id n o t co rre ct th e m isco n d u ct. T h e re fo re , it a p p e a rs th a t a n in d e fin ite su sp e n sio n i s an appr opria te d iscip lin e in th is ca se

.

A s th e d istrict co u rt g ra n te d d e fe n d a n ts su m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to a ctu a l

h a rm , w e v ie w t h e fa cts a n d e v id e n ce w ith re g a rd to su ch issu e “in th e lig h t

m o st fa v o ra b le to th e [S m ith ].” S ee L eM a rie

, 4 8 0 F .3 d a t 3 8 7

. N e v e rth e le ss, it

is cle a r th a t, b e y o n d v io la tio n o f A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ), S m ith w a s

te rm in a te d b a se d o n h is w o rk p e rfo rm a n ce , h is d iscip lin a ry h i sto ry , a n d

su sta in e d v io la tio n s fo r u n a ut hor i z ed c omput er us e and i ns ubo rd in a tio n in b o th

9 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

2 0 0 5 a n d 2 0 0 8

. M o re o v e r, a ssu m in g th a t S m ith w a s n o t ch a rg e d w ith v io la tin g

A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ), S m ith co n ce d e d th a t h e co u ld h a v e b e e n

te rm in a te d b a se d u p o n th e in su b o rd in a tio n o r u n a u th o rize d co m p u te r u se

v io la tio n s. A lth o u g h S m ith a rg u e s th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n te rm in a te d fo r

th o se in fra ctio n s, h e fa ils to cite a n y e v id e n ce in th e re co rd to cre a te a g e n u in e

d isp u te w ith th e 2 0 0 8 m e m o ra n d u m , w h ich p la ce s sig n ifica n t e m p h a sis o n h is

re cid iv ism

. B a se d o n th e se fa cts, it is cle a r th a t S m ith su ffe re d n o a ctu a l h a rm

fo r v io la tin g a n u n co n stitu tio n a l A P D G e n er al Or der bec aus e Sm ith w o u ld h a v e

b e e n te rm in a te d n o tw ith sta n d in g th a t v io la tio n

.

II. F in d in g o f In su b o rd in a tio n

H e re , S m ith cla im s th a t th e d istrict co u rt e rre d in d e te rm in in g th a t h is

b e h a v io r w a s “cle a rly in su b o rd in a te ” b e c a u s e “ d e fia n ce o f a ru le th a t is in

v io la tio n o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t is N O T p u n ish a b le a s ‘in su b o rd in a tio n .’”

S m ith a rg u e s t h a t th e C ity ’s d iscip lin a ry p ro ce ss d e fin e s in su b o rd in a tio n

d iffe re n tly th a n th e d istrict co u rt; a n d th e re fo r e , t h e d istrict co u rt e rre d in

d e te rm in in g th a t h e w a s in su b o rd in a te

.

B e c a u s e th e d istrict co u rt g ra n te d su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f

d e fe n d a n t s w ith re sp e ct to th is cla im

, th is co u rt m u st v ie w “a ll fa cts a n d

e v id e n ce

. . . in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to [S m ith ].” L eM a rie v

. L a

. D e

p ’ t o f

T ra n sp

. & D ev

. , 4 8 0 F .3 d 3 8 3

, 3 8 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 )

. H o w e v e r , S m ith o ffe rs n o

e v id e n ce o r a u th o rity in su p p o rt o f h is cla im th a t h is in su b o rd in a tio n ch a rg e

ste m m e d so le ly fro m h is v io la tio n o f a n u n co n stitu tio n a l A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r.

S m ith o ffe rs o n ly th e co n clu so ry a lle g a tio n th a t “a n y ru le p u rp o rtin g to p u n ish

T o n y S m ith fo r d iso b e y in g [ A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 )] is lik e w ise

in v a lid a n d u n e n fo rce a b le .”

P u rsu a n t to A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (E )(2 ), a n o ffice r i s g u i lty o f

in su b o rd in a tio n if h e d e fie s “t h e a u th o rity o f a n y su p e rv iso r b y o b v io u s

10 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

d isre sp e ct, a rro g a n t o r d isre sp e ctf u l l a n g u a g e o r co n d u ct, rid icu le

, o r b o ld

ch a lle n g e s to o rd e rs issu e d

. . . .” A P D G e n e r a l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (E )(2 ). In

co n tra st to S m ith 's a rg u m e n t, in su b o rd in a tio n d o e s n o t re q u ire a v io la tio n o f a

A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r, m u ch le ss v io la tio n o f A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ).

P rio r to p o stin g th e h ig h ly p e rso n a l a n d e m b a rra ssin g a l l e g a tio n s a b o u t

A ce v e d o , S m ith sh o w e d th a t i n f o r m a tio n to tw o o th e r o ffice rs in re sp o n se to

A ce v e d o ’s te rm in a tio n o f L e e

. S m ith fu rth e r co m m e n te d to a t le a st o n e o th e r

o f f i c e r th a t A ce v e d o ’s te rm in a tio n o f L e e w a s h y p o critica l, o r “H o w is h e

(A ce v e d o ) g o in g to te rm in a te L e e fo r se x u a l h a ra ssm e n t w h e n h e (A ce v e d o ) d id

th e sa m e th in g ?” H e re , it is e v id e n t th a t S m ith ’s co n d u ct w a s d isre sp e ctfu l a n d

w a s o b v io u sly in te n d e d to rid icu le A ce v e d o a n d h is d e cisio n s co n ce rn in g th e

A P D

. A cco rd in g to A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r A 2 0 1 .0 4 (E )(2 ) a n d th e re co rd b e fo re u s,

th e d istrict c o u r t co rre ctly d e te rm in e d th a t S m ith ’s co n d u ct co n stitu te d

in su b o rd in a t i o n , r e g a rd le ss o f w h e th e r it a lso v io la te d A P D G e n e ra l O rd e r

A 2 0 1 .0 4 (G )(2 ).

III. Q u a lified Im m u n ity a n d D u e P ro cess C la im s

In h is first a m e n d e d co m p la in t, S m ith co n te n d s th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts

d e p riv e d h im o f h is (1 ) p ro p e rt y i n te re st in h is re p u ta tio n ; (2 ) h is lib e rty

in te re st in fre e sp e e ch a n d fre e d o m o f th e p r e s s; a n d (3 ) lib e rty a n d p ro p e rty 9

in te re st in h is e m p lo y m e n t. T h e d i s t r ict co u rt, h o w e v e r, d ism isse d S m ith ’s

cla im s b e ca u se S m ith fa ile d to e sta b lish a v io la tio n o f h is d u e p ro ce ss rig h ts,

so m e o r a ll o f S m ith ’s cla im s w e re tim e b a rre d b y th e sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s, a n d

th e e v id e n ce e sta b lish e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t s w e re e n title d to q u a lifie d

im m u n ity

.

On app eal, Sm ith fai ls to chall enge the dis tri ct cour ts hold ing wi th res pec t to this 9

iss ue. There for e, we d o n ot add res s this is sue he re.

11 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

In itia lly

, it sh o u ld b e n o te d th a t S m ith ’s b rie f t o th is co u rt fa ils to

sp e cifica lly a rg u e th a t th e d istrict co u rt e rre d w h e n it d e t e rm in e d S m ith w a s

n o t d e p riv e d o f h is lib e rty o r p ro p e rty in te re st. In ste a d

, S m ith m a k e s t h e

co n clu so ry sta te m e n t th a t d e fe n d a n ts a re n o t e n title d to q u a lifie d im m u n ity

b e ca u se th e y a cte d w ith o u t th e a u t h o r ity o f la w

. T h e o n ly fa ctu a l e v id e n ce 1 0

S m ith se e m s to r e ly o n co m e s fro m h is re p ly to th e d e fe n d a n ts’ re sp o n se to

p la in tiff’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t.

In h is re p ly

, S m ith sta te s th a t C ro n ig d ra fte d th e 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m

co n ta in in g th e m o n e y la u n d e rin g a n d crim in a l co n sp ira cy ch a rg e s b u t m a d e n o

e ffo rt to su p p o rt th o se ch a rg e s w ith a n y e v id e n ce

. S m i t h c l a i m s th a t C ro n ig

th e n d ra fte d th e 2 0 0 8 m e m o ra n d u m a n d in se rte d th e 2 0 0 5 m o n e y la u n d e rin g

a n d crim in a l co n sp ira cy ch a rg e s w ith o u t fu rth e r i nves t i gat i ng t he t r ut h of th o se

ch a rg e s. F in a lly

, S m ith a sse rts th a t w h e n A ce v e d o a n d C ro n ig p u b lish e d th e

2 0 0 8 m e m o ra n d u m th e y v io la te d h is d u e p ro ce ss rig h ts b e ca u se n e ith e r o f th e m

k n e w o f a n y e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e 2 0 0 5 m o n e y la u n d e rin g a n d crim in a l

co n sp ira cy ch a rg e s.

H e re , it is a p p a re n t th a t S m ith is try in g to ch a lle n g e th e a u th e n ticity o f

th e 2 0 0 5 m o n e y la u n d e rin g a n d crim in a l co n sp ira cy ch a rg e s b y cla im in g th a t

th e d e fe n d a n ts, in 2 0 0 8

, d id n o t h a v e a n y e v id e n ce to su p p o rt th e ir a lle g a tio n s

th a t S m ith co m m itte d th e 2 0 0 5 o ffe n se s. H o w e v e r, to th e e x te n t th a t S m ith

a lle g e s d u e p ro ce ss v io la tio n s th a t o ccu rre d in 2 0 0 5

, h is cla im s a re tim e b a rre d

.

B e c a u se § 1 9 8 3 d o e s n o t h a v e a d e sig n a te d sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s, th e

fo ru m sta te ’s g e n e ra l to rt sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a p p lie s; in T e x a s, th is sta tu te

o f lim ita tio n s p e rio d is tw o y e a rs. P rice v . C ity o f S a n A n to n io

, T ex

. , 4 3 1 F .3 d

8 9 0

, 8 9 2 (T e x

. 2 0 0 5 ). S m ith sig n e d th e 2 0 0 5 m e m o ra n d u m o n A p ril 2 0

, 2 0 0 5 ;

Sm ith att em pt s to mak e an ultra vi res clai m agains t def enda nts

, but again cit es only 1 0

to cas e law and conc lude s, wi thou t mo re, that def enda nts act ed wi thou t autho rit y of law and

are ther efo re not enti tle d to qualif ied im mun ity.

12 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

h e b ro u g h t th is su it o n A u g u st 1 4

, 2 0 0 9

. T h e re fo re , a n y cla im s ste m m in g fro m

th e p ro ce ss h e re ce iv e d in 2 0 0 5 a re tim e b a rre d

.

IV

. A tto rn ey ’s F

ees

In its fin a l ju d g m e n t, th e d istrict co u rt o rd e re d th a t th e C ity o f A u stin p a y

co sts a sso cia te d w ith th e c l a i m o n w h ich S m ith p re v a ile d

, a n d th a t S m ith

sh o u ld p a y co sts fo r th e re m a in in g cla im s. T h e re a fte r, b o th p a rtie s file d th e ir

m o tio n s fo r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a n d b ill o f co sts.

T itle 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 8 p ro v id e s th a t i n a f e d e r a l civ il rig h ts a ctio n “th e

co u rt, in its d iscre tio n , m a y a llo w th e p re v a ilin g p a rty

, o th e r th a n th e U n ite d

S ta te s, a re a so n a b le a tto rn e y 's fe e a s p a rt o f th e co sts

. . . . ” S ee 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 8 (b ). In J

im en ez v

. W

o o d C o u n ty

, T

ex

. , 6 2 1 F .3 d 3 7 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ), w e

re sta te d th e b a sic p ro ce d u re a n d sta n d a rd fo r d e te rm in in g a tto rn e y ’s fe e s:

T h e d e te rm in a tio n o f a fe e s a w a rd is a tw o -ste p p r o c e ss. F irst th e co u rt ca lcu la t e s t h e “ lo d e sta r” w h ich is e q u a l to th e

n u m b e r o f h o u rs re a so n a b ly e x p e n d e d m u ltip lie d b y th e p re v a ilin g h o u rly ra te in th e co m m u n ity f o r s i m i l a r w o rk

. T h e co u rt sh o u ld

e x clu d e a ll tim e th a t is e x ce ssiv e , d u p lica tiv e , o r in a d e q u a te ly

d o cu m e n te d

. O n ce th e lo d e sta r a m o u n t is ca lcu la te d

, th e co u rt ca n

a d ju st it b a se d o n th e tw e lv e fa cto rs se t fo rth in J o h n so n v

. G eo rg ia

H ig h w a y E x p ress, In c. , 4 8 8 F .2 d 7 1 4

, 7 1 7

– 1 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 4 ). T h e

co u rt m u st p ro v id e a re a so n a b ly sp e cific e x p la n a tio n fo r a ll a sp e cts

o f a fe e d e te rm in a tio n

. W e re v ie w th e a w a rd fo r a b u se o f

d iscre tio n

.

6 2 1 F .3 d a t 3 7 9 -8 0 (in te rn a l cita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). A cco rd in g

to J o h n so n , th e fo llo w in g fa cto rs a re to b e co n sid e re d w h e n se ttin g a re a so n a b le

a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s fe e s: (1 ) tim e a n d la b o r re q u ire d ; (2 ) n o v e lty a n d d ifficu lty

o f th e q u e sti o n s p r e se n te d ; (3 ) sk ill re q u isite to p e rfo rm th e le g a l se rv ice s

p ro p e rly ; (4 ) p re clu sio n o f o th e r e m p lo y m e n t; (5 ) cu sto m a ry fe e ; (6 ) w h e th e r th e

fe e is fix e d o r co n tin g e n t; (7 ) lim ita tio n s im p o se d b y th e cl i e n t o r th e

cir c u m s t a n ce s; (8 ) a m o u n t in v o lv e d a n d th e re su lt o b ta in e d ; (9 ) e x p e rie n ce ,

re p u ta tio n , a n d a b ility o f th e a tto rn e y s; (1 0 ) “u n d e sira b ility ” o f th e ca se ; (1 1 )

13 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

n a tu re a n d le n g th o f th e p ro fe ssio n a l re la tio n sh ip w ith th e clie n t; a n d (1 2 )

a w a rd s in sim ila r ca se s. 4 8 8 F .2 d a t 7 1 7 -1 9

.

In h is m o tio n fo r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, S m ith s e e k s a p p ro x im a te ly $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

.
A cco rd in g to S m ith , B ill G a m m o n b ille d se v e n ty -th re e h o u rs a t a ra te o f $ 4 0 0

p e r h o u r a n d D a v id R o g e r, G a m m o n ’s a sso cia te

, b ille d 2 5 2 h o u rs a t a ra te o f

$ 2 5 0 p e r h o u r. S m ith th e n a p p lie s a m u ltip lie r o f 1 .2 to e a ch o f h is a tto rn e y s’

f e e s b a se d o n th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e N in th C ircu it’s a p p ro v a l o f a 2

. 0

m u ltip lie r. T h u s, S m ith re q u e ste d a tto rn e y s’ fe e s o f $ 8 8 ,5 1 2

. In a d d itio n ,

1 1

S m ith cla im s th a t R o g e rs sp e n t $ 1 9 2 .0 0 in p ro ce ss s e rv ice co sts, $ 2 ,3 6 1 .1 0 in

d e p o sitio n co sts, $ 1 ,7 1 8 .8 0 i n p h o to co p y in g a n d p rin tin g co sts, $ 4 ,4 7 5 a s

p a y m e n t fo r p a ra le g a l re se a rch a n d d o cu m e n t d ra ftin g , a n d $ 1 ,1 8 2 .5 0 a s

p a y m e n t fo r le g a l se cre ta ry ca se m a n a g e m e n t. T h u s, S m ith cla im s a to ta l o f

$ 9 8 ,4 4 1 .4 0 in a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a n d co sts.

H o w e v e r, b a se d o n t h e d istrict co u rt’s ca lcu la tio n , S m ith w a s a w a rd e d

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a n d co s t s i n a n a m o u n t sig n ifica n tly le ss th a n th a t re q u e ste d

.

T h e d istrict co u rt d e te rm in e d :

H a v in g c o n s i d e re d a ll o f th e J o h n so n fa cto rs, th e e v id e n ce

p ro v id e d b y S m ith ’s co u n se l, a n d th e a rg u m e n ts a n d o b je ctio n s o f

th e p a rtie s, th e d i s t r i c t co u rt a w a rd e d S m ith $ 2 ,5 0 0 in a tto rn e y ’s
fe e s a n d co sts. T h is su m a p p ro p ria te ly re fle cts S m ith ’s v e ry lim ite d

su cce ss, w h ile still re co g n izin g th e u se fu l tim e sp e n t b y co u n se l, th e

m in o r co n tro v e rsy in v o lv e d in th e ca se , a n d th e im p o rta n ce o f civ il rig h ts litig a tio n

.

In Gu am Soc’

y of Ob stetri ci ans & Gy nec olo gists v. Ada

, 100 F.3d 691 (9t h Cir. 1996)

, 1 1

the Nint h Circ uit aff

irm ed a dis tri ct cour t’s det erm inati on that a 2.0 mul tip lier to the lod es tar figur e app lied beca use of “th e extr em e unde sir abilit y of the cas e, the lik eliho od that no othe r
att orne y on isl and wo uld have acc ept ed the cas e, and the rare and e xcep tio nal natur e o f the

cas e, par tic ularl y in the sm all isl and com mun ity of Gu am ” a n d “ [ s ]uc h an enhanc em ent is

clea rly nece ss ary to a reas onable fee wh ere the dis tri ct cour t find s that the cas e is of the type
th a t a t t o rneys are unw illing to tak e for fea r of os tra cizat ion and out of conc ern for thei r

per so nal saf

ety. ” 100 F.3d at 697. Nei ther Sm ith’ s motio n for att orne y’s fee s nor his brie f to
this c o u r t pr ovide reas ons as to wh y we sho uld ado pt the app roac h of the Nint h Circ uit in

app lying t heir 2. 0 e nhance me nt theo ry.

14 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

H e re , S m ith cla im s th a t th e d istrict co u rt e rre d in a w a rd in g $ 2 ,5 0 0 in

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a n d co sts b e c a u s e th e J o h n so n fa cto rs su p p o rt a m o re

su b sta n tia l a w a rd

. S m ith n o te s th a t w h ile a d istrict co u rt h a s th e d iscre tio n to

re d u ce th e fe e a w a rd b a se d o n th e p la in tiff’s la ck o f su cce ss, a re d u c t i o n o f

a p p ro x im a te ly 9 7 .5 % is e x ce ssiv e

.

“ Wher e a d e cisio n a w a rd in g a tto rn e y s' fe e s is a dequat el y s uppor t ed by t he

re co rd a n d th e d istrict co u rt h a s e x p la in e d its re a so n s fo r th e a w a rd

, th e re is n o

a b u se o f d iscre tio n .” F reiler v

. T

a n g ip a h o a P

a rish B d

. O

f E d u c. , 1 8 5 F .3 d 3 3 7

,

3 4 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (citin g S tro n g v

. B ellS o u th T eleco m m s., In c. , 1 3 7 F .3 d 8 4 4

,

8 5 1 (5 th C ir.1 9 9 8 )). “In d e e d

, ‘th e m o st critica l fa cto r’ in d e t e rm in in g th e

re a so n a b le n e ss o f a fe e a w a rd ‘is th e d e g re e o f su cce ss o b ta in e d

. ’ ” F a r ra r v

.

H o b b y , 5 0 6 U .S

. 1 0 3

, 1 1 4 (1 9 9 2 ) (cita tio n s o m itte d ). H e re , S m ith re ce iv e d

n o m in a l d a m a g e s o f o n e d o lla r in ste a d o f th e a p p ro x im a te ly $ 6 5 0 ,0 0 0 in a ctu a l

d a m a g e s th a t h e so u g h t. S m ith ’s re la ti v e l y m in o r su cce ss in th is ca se

a cco m p lish e d little b e y o n d g iv in g h im “th e m o ra l sa tisfa ctio n o f k n o w in g th a t

a fe d e ra l co u rt co n clu d e d t h a t h i s rig h ts h a d b e e n v io la te d .” S ee H ew itt v

.

H elm s , 4 8 2 U .S . 7 5 5 , 7 6 2 (1 9 8 7 ).

In th is ca se , th e d istrict co u rt “fla tly re je ct[e d ]” S m ith ’s cla im s fo r fe e s a n d

a w a rd e d S m ith $ 2 ,5 0 0

. C itin g F a rra r , th e d istrict co u rt re a so n e d th a t “w h e n

a p la in tiff re co v e rs o n ly n o m in a l d a m a g e s b e ca u se o f h is f a ilu re to p ro v e a n

e sse n tia l e le m e n t o f h is cla im fo r m o n e ta ry r e lie f, th e o n ly re a so n a b le fe e is

u su a lly n o fe e a t a ll.” 5 0 6 U .S

. a t 1 1 5

. T h e d istrict co u rt fo u n d th a t S m ith ’s

re co v e ry m e t th is d e scrip tio n

. N e v e rth e le ss, th e d is trict co u rt co n sid e re d th e

“J o h n so n fa cto rs, th e e v id e n ce p ro v id e d b y S m ith ’s co u n se l, a n d th e a rg u m e n ts

a n d o b je ctio n s o f th e p a rtie s” a n d d e te rm in e d th a t S m ith sh o u ld n o t b e d e n ie d

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s e n t ire ly

. In ste a d

, th e d istrict co u rt d e te rm in e d th a t “S m ith ’s

v e ry lim ite d su cce ss, w h ile still re co g n izin g th e u s e f u l tim e sp e n t b y co u n se l,

15 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/24/2012No. 10-51236

th e m in o r co n tro v e rsy in v o lv e d in th is ca se , a n d th e im p o rta n ce o f civ il rig h ts

litig a tio n ,” e n title d S m ith to $ 2 ,5 0 0 in a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a n d co sts.

W h ile S m ith b ro ught mul t i pl e c l ai ms agai ns t t he def endant s he su cce e d e d

o n o n ly o n e o f th e m fo r w h ich h e w a s a w a rd e d o n ly n o m in a l d a m a g e s o f o n e

d o lla r. B a se d o n th e re co rd b e fo re u s, th e d istrict co u rt d i d n o t a b u se its

d iscre tio n in a w a rd in g S m ith $ 2 ,5 0 0 in a tto rn e y ’s fe e s.

C O N C L U S IO N

B a se d o n th e fo re g o in g a n a ly sis, th e d ist r ict co u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g in -p a rt

a n d d e n y in g in -p a rt S m ith ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D

.

16 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/24/2012