FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 9, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 11554

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -011 51 -C V -A R -S J O S E P H Y O U N G , D A R R E L S I M S , M A R K S T E V E N G R E E R , M O R R I S P I C K E T T , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s N E W P R O C E S S S T E E L , L P , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A ugus t9, 2005) B ef ore C A RN E S and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and F O R R E S T E R , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s app ea l bri ng s us aqu es t i on of fi rs ti m pres si on : M aya di stri ctcourt r e q u ir e , a s a c o n d itio n f o rap p e a lin g a ju d g m e n t, th a t alo s in g p la in tif f in a c iv il ri gh t s c as e posta F ed. R . A pp . P . 7 b on d thati ncl ud es the defendant ’ s a nt i ci pat ed appel l at e a tt orney’ s f

ee s? T he fr on tl i ne po si t i on of the appel l ant s i n thi s c as e, pl ai nt i ff s w ho l ostthei r T i t l e V II and 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 1 l aw sui t , i s thatthe di stri ct c o u r t c a n n o t o r d e rth e m to p o s t s u c h a b o n d , r e g a r d le s s . T h e irf a ll b a c k p o s itio n is thatthe courtca nn otdo i tw i tho utm aki ng a f i nd i ng consi st entw i th C hri st i ansburg G a rm e n t C o . v . E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity C o m m ’n , 4 3 4 U .S . 4 1 2 , 9 8 S . C t. 6 9 4 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , th a t th e w o u ld - b e ap p e a l is f r iv o lo u s , u n r e a s o n ab le , o rg r o u n d le s s . A lth o u g h w e r e

je c t th e p la in tif

f s ’ p r im a ry p o s itio n , w e d o f in d m e r it in th e ir s e c o n d a ry o n e . I. I n M a y 2 0 0 1 J o s e p h Y o u n g , D a rr e l S im s , M a rk G r e e r , a n d M o rr is P ic k e tt f i l e d al a w s ui ta ga i ns tthe i re m pl oy e r , N e w P r oc e s s S t e e l , L . P . , pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 1 a n d Ti t l e V I I o f th e Ci v i l Ri g h t s A c to f 1 9 6 4 a s a me n d e d , 4 2 U . S. C. §§ 2000e e t . s e q. T he i rc om pl a i nta l l e ge d va r i ous f orm s of r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on, i nc l udi ng ar a c i a l l y hos t i l e w ork e nvi r onm e nta nd va r i ous a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt ac t i on s. Y ou ng sued un der T i t l e V II and § 19 81 , w hi l e the other pl ai nt i ff s s ued3

o n l y u n d e r§ 1 9 8 1 . N e w Pr o c e s s St e e l mo v e d t o d i s mi s s Y o u n g ’ s Ti t l e V I I c l a i ms and, al t ernat i vel y, m ov ed for part i al sum m ary j ud gm enton tho se cl ai m s. In re spon se , Y ou ng m ov ed t o am end h i s c om pl ai ntt o b ri ng al l of hi s c l ai m s und er§ 1 9 8 1 . T h e c o u rt g ra n ted b o th Y o u n g ’s m o ti o n to am en d an d N ew P ro ce ss S teel’s m ot i on t o ei ther di sm i ss or grantsum m ary j ud gm entagai nstY ou ng ’ s T i t l e V II c la im s . I n J ul y 2002 G r e e rf

i l e d ane w l a w s ui ta l l e gi ng tha the ha d be e n f i r e d by N ew P roce ss S t ee l af

t erthe ori gi nal ac t i on w as fi l ed and thatthe fi ri ng w as r e ta lia to ry . T h e n e w la w s u it w a s c o n s o lid a te d w ith th e o r ig in a l o n e . M e a n w h ile th e p la in tif

f s ’ a tto rn e y in f

o rm e d N e w P r o c e s s S te e l th a t th e p la in tif f s p la n n e d to pu rs ue on l y thei r host i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m s. In re spon se , N ew P roce ss S t ee l f i l e d, pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 41, a n unoppos e d m ot i on t o di s m i s s a l l of the p l a i n t i f f s ’ o th e rc l a i ms , th e o n e s a l l e g i n g r a c i a l d i s c r i mi n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g o v e r t i me a nd pr om ot i ons . T he c our tgr a nt e d tha tm ot i on a nd di s m i s s e d w i th pr e j udi c e a l l of thos e othe rc l a i m s , l e a vi ng f ortr i a l onl y the r a c i a l l y hos t i l e w ork e nvi r onm e nt c la im s a n d G r e e r ’s r e ta lia tio n c la im . T he f i r s ttr i a l of

thos e r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s e nde d i n am i s tr i a l i n J une of 2003, w h i ch w as g ran t ed o n m o t i o n o f th e d efen d an t , w h i ch w as ap p aren t l y m ad e as a resu l to f so m e co m m en t s b y th e p l ai n t i ffs o r th ei r att o rn eys t o th e j u ro rs.4

T he r e a f t e r , on G r e e r ’ s ow n m ot i on hi s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m w a s di s m i s s e d, l e a vi ng f or the se cond tri al on l y the pl ai nt i ff s’ ho st i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m s. T hattri al e nde d i n aj ury ve r di c ta nd f i na l j udgm e ntf

orthe de f

e nda nti n O c t obe r2003. T he f ourpl a i nt i f

f s f i l e d the i rnot i c e of

appe a l f r om tha tj udgm e nton N ove m be r21, 2 0 0 3 . O n F e brua ry 5, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our t , w i thoutpr oddi ng f r om the d e f e n d a n t, e n te r e d a n o r d e rs ta tin g :

P ursuantt o R ul e 7, F eder al R ul e of A pp el l at e P roce du re , thi s c ou rt w oul d r e qui r e appe l l a ntt o f i l e a bond orpr ovi de othe rs e c ur i ty i n a n a m ount n e c e s s a ry to e n s u r e p a y m e n t o f c o s ts o n ap p e a l if

th e p o te n tia l c o s ts ta x ab le o n ap p e a l c a n b e f

a ir ly ap p r o x im a te d . I f

ap p e lle e w is h e s to in v o k e R u le 7 , it s ha l l w i thi n f

our t e e n ( 14) da y s s ubm i te vi de nt i a rym a t e r i a l s t o s uppor tthe f ix in g o f a b o n d a m o u n t. B ei ng abl e t o t ake ahi ntw hen h i tov erthe head w i th o ne, the defendantre spon ded by f i l i ng a m ot i on tha ta s ke d the c our tt o r e qui r e the pl a i nt i f f s t o pos ta bond. T he defe nd antsoug htt o h ave the bo nd cover i t s a nt i ci pat ed appel l at e a tt orney’ s f ee s a s w el l as the other c ost s i tw ou l d i ncur as a r es ul tof the appeal . T he m ot i on w as ac com pani ed by af

fi davi t s e st i m at i ng the am ou ntof tho se att orney’ s f ee s. In grant i ng the m ot i on i n i t s e nt i re ty, the di stri ctcourtre l i ed on P edra zav. U ni t ed G uar. C orp. , 31 3 F . 3d 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 02 ), w hi ch i tca l l ed “ po t entm edi ci ne. ” T he or de rthe c our te nt e r e d r e qui r e d the pl a i nt i f f s t o pos ta c os tbond i n the a m ount5

o f $ 6 1 ,0 0 0 a s a p r e r e q u is ite to th e irap p e a l. A ll b u t $ 1 ,0 0 0 o f th a t a m o u n t w a s to c o v e rth e a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s th e d e f

e n d a n t e s tim a te d it w o u ld in c u rin th e ap p e a l. T he de f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on di d nota l l e ge , a nd the c our t ’ s or de rdi d notpr e t e nd to f in d , th a t th e p la in tif

f s ’ ap p e a l w o u ld b e f

r iv o lo u s , u n r e a s o n ab le , o rg r o u n d le s s . I ns t e a d, the c our te xpr e s s l y di s a vow e d the ne e d f ora f i ndi ng of tha tna tur e . I n a m em orandu m op i ni on ac com panyi ng i t s order , the courtst at ed: “ T he fi xi ng of a R u le 7 b o n d , p u r s u a n t to P e d r a [ ]z av . U n ite d G u a r a n ty C o rp ., 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th e c o u r t to p r e d ic t w h e th e ro rn o t ad e f e n d a n t w ill p r e v a il o n ap p e a l, o rto r e q u ir e th a t d e f e n d a n t d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e ap p e a l is fr i vo l ou s. ” T h e p la in tif

f s ap p e a le d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s im p o s itio n o f th e R u le 7 b o n d . S e e C ohe n v. B e ne f

i c i a l I ndus . L oa n C orp. , 337 U . S . 541, 546–47, 69 S . C t . 1221, 1 2 2 5

– 2 6 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ( ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rr e q u ir in g o n e p a r ty to p o s t s e c u r ity p r io rto appeal i ng i s afi nal appeal abl e order) . T hei r put at i ve appeal on the m er i t s w as s ta y e d p e n d in g th e ap p e a l o f th e b o n d is s u e . W ith o u t h e a r in g o r a l a r g u m e n t, a pa ne l of thi s C our ti s s ue d ade c i s i on va c a t i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rr e qui r i ng the b o n d an d re m an d in g w ith in stru ctio n s th at th e c o u rt n o t i n clu d e th e d ef en d an t’ s a nt i c i pa t e d appe l l a t e a tt orne y ’ s f e e s i n the R ul e 7 bond abs e nta f i ndi ng tha tthe pl ai nt i ff’ s app ea l w ou l d b e f ri vo l ou s, un re as on abl e, or grou nd l es s. Y ou ng v. N ew6

P r oc e s s S t e e l , L . P . , N o. 04- 11554 ( 11th C i r . N ov. 23, 2004) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T he defe nd antfi l ed a pet i t i on for r ehea ri ng en banc. In re spon se , the ori gi nal panel va c a t e d i t s e a r l i e ropi ni on a nd s e tthe c a s e f orr e he a r i ng be f

or e a n or a l a r gum e nt pa ne l of the C ourt . W e a r e the ne w pa ne l a nd ha ve he a r d or a l a r gum e nton the is s u e . II. W hi l e thi s C ou rtgeneral l y r evi ew s adi stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of a R ul e 7 costbo nd on l y f

or abuse of di sc re t i on , P edra za , 31 3 F . 3d at13 28 , thatl i m i t ed s t a nda r d doe s notm e a n m uc h i n thi s c a s e , w hi c h turns on a pur e l a w i s s ue in v o lv in g th e in te rp r e ta tio n o f R u le 7 . W e d e c id e p u r e la w is s u e s d e n o v o , id ., w hi c h i s a nothe rw a y of s a y i ng tha ta rul i ng ba s e d on a n e rr orof l a w i s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. K oon v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 518 U . S . 81, 100, 116 S . C t . 2035, 2047 ( 1996) ( “ A di s tr i c tc our tbyde f i ni t i on abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tm a ke s a n e rr orof l aw . ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 33 2 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 43 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( sa m e) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a l l , 349 F . 3d 1320, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( a n e rr orof l a w “ i s by defi ni t i on an abuse of di sc re t i on ”) . R ul e 7 ha s tw o s e nt e nc e s , butonl y the f i r s tone ha s a ny r e l e va nc e t o the i ss ue before us. T hatse nt ence prov i des: “ In a c i vi l ca se , the di stri ctcourtm ay r e qui r e a n appe l l a ntt o f i l e a bond orpr ovi de othe rs e c ur i ty i n a nyf orm a nd7

a m ountne c e s s a ry t o e ns ur e pa y m e ntof c os t s on appe a l . ” F e d. R . A pp. P . 7. T he rul e does notdefi ne “ cost s” for i t s purpo se s, bu tthi s C ou rtw enta l on g w ayt ow ar d do i ng so, atl ea stfor c as es w here a f ee -s hi ft i ng st atut e i s i nv ol ved, i n o ur P edra za d e c is io n . T h e r e w e e x p la in e d th a t th e w o r d “c o s ts ” f o rR u le 7 p u rp o s e s s h o u ld d r a w its m e a n in g f

r o m th e f e e - s h if tin g s ta tu te ap p lic ab le to th e u n d e r ly in g c a s e . P e d r a z a , 3 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 3 . P ed raza w as a c a s e a r is in g u n d e r1 2 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 7 ( a ) o f th e R e a l E s ta te S e ttle m e n t P r o c e d u r e s A c t, a n d th e ap p lic ab le f e e - s h if tin g p r o v is io n in th a t s ta tu te s t a t e d tha t“ the c our tm a y a w a r d t o the pr e va i l i ng pa r ty the c our tc os t s of the a c t i on to g e th e rw ith r e a s o n ab le a tto rn e y s f e e s .” 1 2 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 7 ( d ) ( 5 ) ( e m p h a s is added). W e e xp l ai ned thatthe w ords “ t og ether w i th” m ea ntthatatt orney’ s f ee s w er e r ec ov er abl e i n add i t i on t o cost s, no tas partof cost s. P edra za , 31 3 F . 3d at 13 33 –3 4. F or thatre as on , w e c on cl ud ed thati n a R E S P A ca se the di stri ctcourt c o u ld n o t o r d e rap p e lla n ts to p o s t aR u le 7 b o n d th a t in c lu d e d a n tic ip a te d ap p e lla te a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . I d . a t 1 3 3 4

– 3 5 . I t c o u ld n o t, b e c a u s e th e f e e - s h if tin g s ta tu te appl i c abl e t o the unde r l y i ng R E S P A l a w s ui t , 12 U . S . C . § 2607( d) ( 5) , di d not in c lu d e a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in its d e f

in itio n o f “c o s ts ,” 3 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 4

– 3 5 , a n d R u le 7 d oes notautho ri ze court s t o requi re a bon d i n an am ou ntl ar ger than “ cost s” as d e f in e d in th e ap p lic ab le f

e e - s h if tin g s ta tu te .8

W e s a id m o r e in P e d r a z a , a n d th e m o r e w e s a idh a s d ir e c t r e le v a n c e to th is c a s e . E x p l i c a t i n g o u rh o l d i n g i n P e d r a z ab y g i v i n g a n e x a m p l e o f i t s c o n v e r s e , we st at ed thata di stri ctcourtcoul d o rdera l osi ng pl ai nt i ff t o p osta R ul e 7 bo nd that i nc l ude d a nt i c i pa t e d appe l l a t e a tt orne y ’ s f e e s i f 42 U . S . C . § 1988 w e r e the unde r l y i ng f

e e - s hi f t i ng s t a tut e . S e e 313 F . 3d a t1333–35. T ha t ’ s be c a us e § 1988 ex p re ss ly allo w s th e c o u rt to aw ar d th e p re v aili n g p ar ty “a re as o n ab le atto rn ey ’s fe e a s partof the cost s. ” 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 8(b) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hu s, w here § 1 9 8 8 is th e ap p lic ab le f e e - s h if tin g s ta tu te , “c o s ts ” in c lu d e s a n tic ip a te d ap p e lla te a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s . I n ourpr e s e ntc a s e , of c our s e , § 1988 i s the pr ovi s i on tha tgove rns f e e - s h if tin g , a s it w ill in c iv il r ig h ts c a s e s g e n e r a lly . O f co u rse, th e st at em en ti n P ed raza ab o u tw h atsh o u l d b e d o n e i n a case w here § 1 98 8 i s the fe e- shi ft i ng source i s probabl y di ctum , because thatca se w as notbe f or e thi s C our tthe n. S e e W a tt s v. B e l l S outh T e l e c om m . , I nc . , 316 F . 3d 1203, 1207 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gui l l a r d, 217 F . 3d 1319, 1321 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( per c uri am ). W e a re no tbo un d t o fol l ow di ctum , bu tdo ac cord i ta ny r e s pe c ti te a rns thr ough i t s pe r s ua s i ve va l ue . S e e N e w P or tL a r go, I nc . v. M o n r o e C o u n ty , 9 8 5 F .2 d 1 4 8 8 , 1 5 0 0 n .7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( E d m o n d s o n , J ., s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng) . T he s t a t e m e nti n P e dr a z aabout§ 1988 i s noti nc i de nt a l or oh -by- the-w aydi ctum , bu ti nst ea d i l l ustra t es the nature a nd ext entof the rul e that9

w a s a c tua l l y us e d t o de c i de the c a s e . F ortha tr e a s on, w e a r e pe r s ua de d t o gi ve the s ta te m e n t m o r e r e s p e c t th a n w e m ig h t a f f o r d d ic tath a t w a s n o t a s c lo s e ly i nt ertw i ned w i th the re as on i ng and res ul tof the deci si on cont ai ni ng i t . S ee L ocal 2 8 o f S h e e t M e ta l W o rk e r s ’ I n t’l A s s ’n v . E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity C o m m ’n , 4 7 8 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 9 0 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 3 0 1 9 , 3 0 5 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( O ’C o n n o r , J ., concurri ng i n p artand d i ss ent i ng i n p art ) ( “ A l tho ug h t ec hn i ca l l y di ct a, . . . an im p o r ta n t p a r t o f

th e C o u r t’s r a tio n a le f

o rth e r e s u lt it r e a c h e d . . . is e n title d to gr e a t e rw e i ght. . . . ” ) . E ve n though notr e qui r e d t o a dhe r e t o P e dr a z a ’ s s t a t e m e nt thatR ul e 7 perm i t s i ncl usi on of a def endant ’ s app el l at e a tt orney’ s f ee s a s partof a c os tbond w he r e § 1988 appl i e s , w e none the l e s s c hoos e t o f ol l ow i t . T he s t a t e m e ntm a ke s s e ns e , a nd i te xpr e s s e s a c onc l us i on c om pe l l e d by the r e a s oni ng th a t le d th e C o u r t to r e a c h th e r e s u lt it d id in P e d r a z a . T he pl ai nt i ff

s c on t end thatP edra za ’ s s t at em entabou tthe prop er i n t erp ret at i o n o f R u l e 7 w h ere § 1 9 8 8 ap p l i es, w h i ch i s t o say i n ci v i l ri g h t s cases, is w r o n g . T h e s ta te m e n t is w r o n g , th e y s a y , b e c a u s e it is in c o n s is te n t w ith th a t p r o v is io n ’s p r o n o u n c e d p la in tif f p r e f e r e n c e . A lth o u g h th e la n g u a g e o f § 1 9 8 8 is it se lf p ar ty-n eu tral, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h eld in C h ristian sb u rg th at w h il e “a p r e v a ilin g [ c iv il r ig h ts ] p la in tif f o r d in a r ily is to b e a w a r d e d a tto rn e y ’s f e e s in a ll buts pe c i a l c i r c um s t a nc e s , ” C hr i s t i a ns bur g, 434 U . S . a t417, 98 S . C t . a t69810

( e m pha s i s om i tt e d) , a di s tr i c tc our ts houl d nota w a r d a tt orne y ’ s f e e s t o a prevai l i ng ci vi l ri gh t s def endantabse nt“ a f

i nd i ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s a ct i on w as f r iv o lo u s , u n r e a s o n ab le , o rw ith o u t f o u n d a tio n ,” id . a t 4 2 1 , 9 8 S . C t. a t 7 0 0 . T he pl ai nt i ff

s i n thi s c as e a sk us t o carryov erC hri st i ansburg’ s pro-pl ai nt i ff i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the f e e - s hi f t i ng pr ovi s i on of

§ 1988 i nt o R ul e 7’ s appe l l a t e bond pr ovi s i on. A c tua l l y , tha ti s the i rba c k up pos i t i on. T he i rpr i m a ry pos i t i on a s ks us to s la n t R u le 7 e v e n f

u r th e rto w a r d p la in tif

f s th a n C h r is tia n s b u r g s la n te d § 1 9 8 8 . W ha tthe y pr i m a r i l y w a ntus t o do i s hol d tha ta tt orne y ’ s f e e s c a n ne ve rbe i n cl u d ed i n th e b o n d an ap p eal i n g p l ai n t i ff can b e req u i red t o p o sti n a case co v ered b y § 1 9 8 8 , n o tev en w h ere th e ap p eal i s g o i n g t o b e fri v o l o u s, unr e a s onabl e , orw i thoutf ounda t i on. T he C hr i s t i a ns bur g de c i s i on a r gue s a ga i ns tthe abs ol ut i s tpos i t i on the pl ai nt i ff s a dv ocat e. T he S up re m e C ou rtdi d n otho l d i n C hri st i ansburg that att orney’ s f

ee s c ou l d n everbe aw ar ded t o p re vai l i ng defe nd ant s; i ton l y r es tri ct ed the c i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h tha tc oul d happe n. W e c a n f a i thf ul l y f ol l ow the C hr i s t i a ns bur g de c i s i on by hol di ng tha tthe s a m e r e s tr i c t i ons appl i e d by i tt o the aw ar d o f a tt orney’ s f

ee s und er§ 1 98 8 al so appl y t o the i ncl usi on of att orney’ s f ee s i n a R ul e 7 costbo nd . R ul e 7’ s l angu age m akes no di st i nct i on betw ee n p l ai nt i ff s a nd de f e nda nt s ( “ m a y r e qui r e a n appe l l a ntt o f i l e a bond” ) , j us ta s the f e e - s hi f t i ng11

p r o v is io n s o f

§ 1 9 8 8 d o n o t ( “m a y a llo w th e p r e v a ilin g p a r ty . . . a r e a s o n ab le a tto rn e y ’s f

e e ” ) . A nd the sa m e pol i cyre as on s a re atpl ayi n b oth con t ext s. T he re as on that att orney’ s f

ee s a re aw ar ded t o succe ss ful pl ai nt i ff s a s am att erof course w here § 1988 appl i e s i s tha ti n c i vi l r i ght s c a s e s pl a i nt i f f s a r e “ the c hos e n i ns trum e ntof C on gres s. ” C hri st i ansburg, 43 4 U . S . at41 8, 98 S . C t . at69 9. C on gres s has d e c id e d to im p le m e n t its c iv il r ig h ts la w s b y e f f e c tiv e ly d e p u tiz in g in d iv id u a ls to ac tas “ pri vat e a tt orney genera l [s ] ” w hi l e they pursue thei r ow n i nt er es t s a s pl a i nt i f f s . N e w m a n v. P i ggi e P a rk E nt e r . , I nc . , 390 U . S . 400, 402, 88 S . C t . 964, 966 ( 1968) . R e i m bur s i ng s uc c e s s f ul pl a i nt i f

f s f orthe c os tof

the i ra tt orne y s outof the l os i ng de f

e nda nt s ’ poc ke t s s e rve s a dua l f unc t i on: i tpr ovi de s a n i nc e nt i ve f or b r in g in g th e la w s u its , a n d it a d d s to th e c o s ts o f th o s e w h o v io la te th e c iv il r ig h ts o f o th e r s . I d .; C h r is tia n s b u r g , 4 3 4 U .S . a t 4 1 8

– 1 9 , 9 8 S . C t. a t 6 9 9 . B y c on tra st , a vi ct ori ou s def endanti n a ci vi l ri gh t s a ct i on i s notthe “ chosen i nstrum entof C on gres s, ” f ew defe nd ant s nee d any i ncent i ve t o d ef end them se l ves w he n s ue d, a nd a l os i ng pl a i nt i f f i n ac i vi l r i ght s c a s e ha s notbe e n f ound t o ha ve vi ol at ed anyone’ s c i vi l ri gh t s. H ence the rul e a nn ou nced i n C hri st i ansburg that d ef en d an ts w h o w in civ il rig h ts law su it s g en er ally ca n n o t rec o v erth eir a tt o rn ey ’s f e e s f r o m p la in tif

f s . T o th a t g e n e r a l ru le , h o w e v e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in12

C hri st i ansburg al so anno un ce d an except i on : A courtm ayaw ar d att orney’ s f ee s u n d er§ 1 9 8 8 to a p re v aili n g d ef en d an t w h er e th e c o u rt fin d s th at “th e p lain ti ff’s a c t i on w a s f

r i vol ous , unr e a s onabl e , orw i thoutf ounda t i on. ” C hr i s t i a ns bur g, 434 U .S . a t 4 2 1 , 9 8 S . C t. a t 7 0 0 . T h is e x c e p tio n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p la in e d , is appr opr i a t e be c a us e “ w hi l e C ongr e s s w a nt e d t o c l e a rthe w a y f ors ui t s t o be brou gh tun der the [und er l yi ng ci vi l ri gh t s] A ct , i tal so w ant ed t o p rot ec t defe nd ant s f

rom bu rdensom e l i t i gat i on havi ng no l egal or fa ctual basi s. ” I d. at 420, 98 S . C t . a t700. P uta l i tt l e di f f e r e nt l y , r e qui r i ng pl a i nt i f f s t o pa y the de f e nda nt ’ s a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s w he r e the r e c l e a r l y w a s no good r e a s on t o br i ng the la w s u it d is c o u r a g e s g r o u n d le s s la w s u its , w h ic h is a g o o d th in g in th e c iv il r ig h ts area as in o th ers. T he C hr i s t i a ns bur g rul e appl i e s notonl y t o tr i a l s i n c i vi l r i ght s c a s e s , but al so t o app ea l s by pl ai nt i ff s i n them . B ec ause a hea vy m aj ori ty of j ud gm ent s a re a f f i rm e d on appe a l , m os tappe a l s by pl a i nt i f f s i n c i vi l r i ght s c a s e s do not ul t i m a t e l y r e s ul ti n r i ght i ng a w r ong unde rthe c i vi l r i ght s a c t s . B uts om e do. A nd w he n the y do, the pl a i nt i f f s a r e a w a r de d a tt orne y ’ s f e e s f orthe appe l l a t e pa r tof the i re f f or ta s w e l l a s f

orthe tr i a l pa r t . S e e L a tt i m or e v. O m a n C ons tr . , 868 F . 2d 4 3 7 , 4 4 0 & n .6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( a f f irm in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f ap p e lla te a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s t o apr e va i l i ng c i vi l r i ght s pl a i nt i f f ) , abr oga t e d on othe rgr ounds byWe a reno t persuade d b y

thede fendant’ s a ssu

ra nc ethat if a plaintif f in a c ivi l rights 1 casecannot a fford to post a bond that includes the def endant’ s anticipated attorney ’s fe es on appeal, the plaintiff ca

n always move to proce ed in forma pauperis. See Fe d. R. App. P. 24. Th eplaintif

fsins ist thereis a g a p b e tw e en q

ualif ying fo r in f or ma pa up eri s statusand

be inga ble to post a larg e bond, and that they fall in it. W e nee d not decide if therearesome plaintiffs who aretoo poor to post a bond but too affluent to qualify for IFP status. Cf. Pag e v. A.H. Robins Co. , 8 5 F .R. D. 13 9, 14 0 ( E. D. Va . 1 98 0) (“A l og ic al c ounterp art to A pp e llateRul e7 isAppe llate Rule 24, which per

tains to appeals in forma pauperis.”). We ne ed not dec ide that bec ause even fo r p laintif

fswh o c an a ff

ord topo st a

pp e al bo nd s, thelarg er t

hebo nd amou nt, thehigher t

hec os t of appe aling ; and the higher thecost of appe aling , the greater the disincentive for doingso. 13 C i ty of B url i ng t on v. D ague, 50 5 U . S . 55 7, 11 2 S . C t . 26 38 (199 2). L i kew i se , w he n apl a i nt i f

f w ho w a s uns uc c e s s f

ul a ttr i a l f

a r e s no be tt e ron appe a l , the pl a i nt i f f i s nota s s e s s e d the appe l l a t e a tt orne y ’ s f e e s of the de f e nda ntunl e s s the ap p ea l w as fr iv o lo u s, u n re as o n ab le, o r w ith o u t fo u n d atio n . S ee B u g g v . In t’ l U n io n o f A llie d I n d u s . W o rk e r s o f A m ., L o c a l 5 0 7 , 6 7 4 F .2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 9

– 6 0 1 ( 7 th C i r. 19 82 ). A p p ly in g th e r e a s o n in g o f th e C h r is tia n s b u r g d e c is io n to th e R u le 7 c o n te x t, a genera l rul e r equi ri ng a l osi ng pl ai nt i ff i n a ci vi l ri gh t s c as e t o p osta bon d that i nc l ude s the de f

e nda nt ’ s a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s on appe a l w oul d di s c our a ge a nd m i ght p r e v e n t s o m e ap p e a ls f

o rw h ic h th e r e is a g o o d b a s is . A s a r e s u lt, in d iv id u a ls w oul d be pr e ve nt e d f

r om a c t i ng a s pr i va t e a tt orne y s ge ne r a l t o pur s ue thr ough the appel l at e proces s the enforce m entof the ci vi l ri gh t s a ct s. T hatw ou l d b e bad 1 po l i cyatthe appel l at e s t age of the proces s f or the sa m e r ea sons i ti s a tthe tri al s ta g e .14

B y th e s a m e to k e n , h o w e v e r , ap la in tif f w h o is u n s u c c e s s f

u l in a c iv il r ig h ts sui tattri al shou l d n otbe fr ee d from the bu rden of an appel l at e bon d thati ncl ud es ant i ci pat ed att orney’ s f

ee s w here the appeal i s l i kel y t o b e f ri vo l ou s, un re as on abl e, o rw ith o u t f

o u n d a tio n . O n ap p e a l, a s a t tr ia l, ap p ly in g f u ll c o s t d is in c e n tiv e s in tho se ci rc um st ance s i s c on si st entw i th the i nt entof C on gres s “ t o p rot ec t d e f e n d a n ts f r o m b u r d e n s o m e litig a tio n h a v in g n o le g a l o rf a c tu a l b a s is .” C h r is tia n s b u r g , 4 3 4 U .S . a t 4 2 0 , 9 8 S .C t. a t 7 0 0 . W hi l e happy t o h ave C hri st i ansburg’ s gener al rul e i m po rt ed i nt o the R ul e 7 a r e a , the pl a i nt i f

f s w a ntus t o c l i p f

r om tha trul e the e xc e pt i on f orf r i vol ous ap p e a ls . T h e y a r g u e th a t in th is c o n te x t th e C h r is tia n s b u r g e x c e p tio n is u n n e c e s s a ry a n d im p r a c tic a l. I t is u n n e c e s s a ry to d is c o u r a g e f r iv o lo u s ap p e a ls in c i vi l r i ght s c a s e s , the y s a y , be c a us e F e d. R . A pp. P . 38 a l r e a dy s e rve s tha tf unc t i on i n al l ca se s. R ul e 38 d oes a l l ow an appel l at e c ou rt , af t erm ot i on fr om the appel l ee ora f t e ri s s ui ng i t s ow n not i c e , t o or de rthe appe l l a ntt o pa y da m a ge s a nd s i ngl e or doubl e c os t s f

ora f r i vol ous appe a l . N one the l e s s , the a r gum e nttha tR ul e 38 ob vi at es the neces si ty f

or the C hri st i ansburg except i on atthe appel l at e l evel do es n o t m e a s u r e w e ll a g a in s t e x p e r ie n c e o rlo g ic . E xpe r i e nc e ha s s how n tha tbe c a us e m os tappe l l e e s j us tw a ntt o be r i d of the a n n o y a n c e o f

a b a s e le s s ap p e a l w ith a s little a d d itio n a l f u s s a s p o s s ib le , th e tr ic k le15

o f R u le 3 8 m o tio n s d o e s n o t n e a r ly ap p r o x im a te th e f lo o d o f f r iv o lo u s ap p e a ls . A nd gi ven al l of the dem ands on the t i m e of app el l at e c ou rt s, fe w R ul e 38 n ot i ce s is s u e w ith o u t am o tio n . T h e s e f o r c e s c o m b in e to m a k e R u le 3 8 a to o th le s s tig e rin m o s t in s ta n c e s . N o t o n ly th a t, b u t lo g ic a lly it is b e tte rto p r e v e n t f r iv o lo u s ap p e a ls tha n t o puni s h thos e w ho br i ng the m a f t e rthe c a s e ha s t a ke n the t i m e of the appel l at e c ou rt . W e e xp ec tthatatl ea stsom e bas el es s app ea l s w i l l be st op ped at th e R u le 7 s ta g e , s o o n e rr a th e rth a n la te rin th e p r o c e s s a n d w ith g r e a te rs a v in g s in tim e a n d e f

f o r t. T he pl a i nt i f

f s ’ i m pr a c t i c a l i ty a r gum e nta ga i ns tr e c ogni z i ng the C h r is tia n s b u r g e x c e p tio n in th e R u le 7 c o n te x t p o s its th a t it w ill b e “e x tr e m e ly di f f i c ul t ” f ora di s tr i c tc our tt o de t e rm i ne pr os pe c t i ve l y w he the ra n appe a l i s goi ng t o b e f ri vo l ou s, un re as on abl e, or w i tho utfoun dat i on . D i stri ctcourt s, ho w ever , have a grea tdeal of experi ence w ei gh i ng the m er i t s of pot ent i al appeal s. In every o n e o f th e th o u s a n d s o f

p r o c e e d in g s in w h ic h a s ta te p r is o n e rd e n ie d 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 r e lie f

o ra f e d e r a l p r is o n e rd e n ie d 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 r e lie f s e e k s to ap p e a l, the di s tr i c tc our ttha tde ni e d r e l i e f m us tde t e rm i ne w he the rthe r e i s l i ke l y t o be e n o u g h s u b s t a n c e t o a n ap p e a l f o ro n e t o b e a l l o w e d . Se e Fe d . R. A p p . P. 22( b) ( 1) ( “ I n ahabe a s c orpus pr oc e e di ng . . . [ i ] f a n appl i c a ntf

i l e s a not i c e of16

ap p e a l, th e d is tr ic t ju d g e w h o r e n d e r e d th e ju d g m e n t m u s t e ith e ris s u e a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility o rs ta te w h y a c e r tif ic a te s h o u ld n o t is s u e .” ) . I n de c i di ng w he the rt o a l l ow a n appe a l f r om the de ni a l of

§ 2254 or§ 2255 re l i ef t o p roce ed, the di stri ctcourtm ustdeci de i f the pet i t i on er“ has m ade a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f

th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . W h e r e th e c o u r t h a s h e ld th a t ap r o c e d u r a l b a rto r e lie f e x is ts , it m us ta l s o de c i de i f

the pr i s one rha s m a de a s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng tha tthe pr oc e dur a l rul i ng w a s w r ong. S e e S l a c k v. M c D a ni e l , 529 U . S . 473, 483–84, 120 S . C t. 1 5 9 5 , 1 6 0 3

– 0 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e s e d e te rm in a tio n s , w h ic h d is tr ic t c o u r ts rout i nel y m ake i n o rdert o d ec i de w hether the deni al of § 2 25 4 o r § 22 55 re l i ef ca n b e ap p e a le d , a r e n o t p e r f e c tly a n a lo g o u s to th e d e te rm in a tio n th e y m u s t m a k e in or de rt o de c i de w he the ra j udgm e ntde ny i ng r e l i e f i n ac i vi l r i ght s c a s e c a n be appe a l e d. D e c i di ng w he the ra “ s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng” ha s be e n m a de i s notthe s a m e thi ng a s de t e rm i ni ng w he the ra n appe a l w i l l be f r i vol ous , unr e a s onabl e , or w ith o u t fo u n d atio n . B u t b o th task s e ss en ti ally in v o lv e e v alu atin g a p lain ti ff’s pos s i bi l i ty of

s uc c e s s on appe a l ba s e d on w ha tthe c our tha s s e e n of hi s c a s e a tthe tr i a l l e ve l . T ha ti s e nough of a s i m i l a r i ty t o c onvi nc e us tha tdi s tr i c tc our t s w i l l be ab l e t o assess p ro sp ect i v el y ap p eal s fro m th e d en i al o f rel i ef i n a ci v i l ri g h t s case u n d e ras c a le h e a v ily tilte d in f a v o ro f th e p la in tif

f w h o w a n ts to ap p e a l.17

I n s u m m a ry , r e a d in g R u le 7 a g a in s t th e C h r is tia n s b u r g d e c is io n , w e h o ld th ata d i stri ctco u rtm ay n o treq u i re an u n su ccessfu l p l ai n t i ff i n a ci v i l ri g h t s case t o pos ta n appe l l a t e bond tha ti nc l ude s notonl y or di na ry c os t s buta l s o the defe nd ant ’ s a nt i ci pat ed att orney’ s f ee s on app ea l , un l es s the courtdet erm i nes that the appe a l i s l i ke l y t o be f r i vol ous , unr e a s onabl e , orw i thoutf ounda t i on. I f

the co u rt d o es m ak e th at d eter m in atio n , i t h as d iscr etio n to g ra n t th e d ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n an d re q u ire th e p lain ti ff to p o st a b o n d in th e a m o u n t o f th e d ef en d an t’ s a n tic ip a te d c o s ts in c lu d in g ap p e lla te a tto rn e y ’s f e e s . Bu ti tn e e d n o td o s o . Be c a u s e Ru l e 7 s t a t e s th e a u th o r i ty i tg i v e s i n t e rms of “ m ay , ” the di stri ctcourtm aydeci de no tt o requi re an appeal bo nd or t o requi re on e thatdo es no ti ncl ud e the am ou ntof the defendant ’ s a nt i ci pat ed att orney’ s f ee s on appe a l . S e e F e d. P r e s c r i pt i on S e rv. , I nc . v. A m . P ha rm . A s s ’ n, 636 F . 2d 755, 757 n. 2 ( D . C . C i r . 1980) ( “ [ T ] he ne w R ul e 7, e f f e c t i ve A ugus t1979, l e a ve s the r e qui r e m e ntof

a n appe a l bond t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s c r e t i on . . . . W e c a nnot d is m is s A m e r ic a n ’s ap p e a l f o rf a ilu r e to p o s t ab o n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c h o s e n o t to r e q u i r e . ” ) ; Pa n A m. G r a i n M f g . Co . v . P. R. Po r t s A u th . , 1 9 3 F. R. D . 2 6 , 4 3 ( D . P. R. 20 00 ) ( “ R ul e 7 l ea ves t o the di sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourti n a ci vi l ca se w hether t o r e qui r e the f

i l i ng of a bond f orc os t s on appe a l . ” ) ; L undy v. U ni on C a rbi de18

C orp. , 598 F . S upp. 451, 452 ( D . O r . 1984) ( “ T he r e qui r e m e ntof a n appe a l bond un der A pp el l at e R ul e 7 i s l ef tt o the di sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourt . ”) . O f c o u r s e , th e f

a c t th a t ap la in tif

f in a c iv il r ig h ts c a s e is r e q u ir e d to p o s t a R ul e 7 bo nd thati ncl ud es ant i ci pat ed appel l at e a tt orney’ s f ee s does notm ea n the pl a i nt i f f w i l l be r e qui r e d t o pa y a tt orne y ’ s f e e s i f the j udgm e nti s a f

f i rm e d on appe a l . T hi s C our tw i l l a w a r d ade f e nda ntw ho s uc c e e ds i n pr e s e rvi ng aj udgm e nt a ga i ns tapl a i nt i f

f i n ac i vi l r i ght s c a s e a tt orne y ’ s f e e s onl y i f

w e f i nd tha tthe pl a i nt i f f’ s appe a l turne d outt o be f r i vol ous , unr e a s onabl e , orw i thoutf ounda t i on w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e C h r is tia n s b u r g d e c is io n . W e R EVER SE the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ri m pos i ng aR ul e 7 bond i n the a m ountof

$61, 000, a nd RE MAND the c a s e f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w i th thi s opi ni on.