Source: https://casetext.com/case/hanrahan-v-hampton
Timestamp: 2019-02-19 21:59:41
Document Index: 180258887

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1988', '§ 1988', 'art, 484', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', '§ 2000', '§ 402', '§ 1973', '§ 1988', '§ 1983']

Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754 | Casetext
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses0lockCiting BriefsBriefs21lockCiting CasesCiting Cases644
Hanrahanv.Hampton
446 U.S. 754•100 S. Ct. 1987•
…A "prevailing party" under section 1988 means "a party [who] has prevailed on the merits of at least some of…
…This important public interest in assuring that individuals would not be deterred from exposing violations of…
noting that Butz "cautioned the judiciary to exercise their authority under the rules of procedure in order to protect official defendants from groundless claims"
Summary of this case from Green v. Maraio
holding that a remand to the district court does not confer prevailing party status on the appellant under the Civil Rights Attorney&apos;s Fees Awards Act of 1976
Summary of this case from Gurley v. Peake
holding that remand to district court does not establish eligibility for fees under "prevailing party" statute when the statute is not aimed at ensuring an agency&apos;s procedural diligence
Summary of this case from West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Norton
Together with No. 79-914, Johnson et al. v. Hampton et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
In the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to permit the award of a reasonable attorney's fee to the "prevailing party" as part of the taxable costs in a suit brought under any of several specified civil rights statutes. The respondents brought suit under three of those statutes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the petitioners, and seeking money damages from them. The District Court directed verdicts for the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial, 600 F.2d 600. The Court of Appeals also awarded to the respondents their costs on appeal, including attorney's fees which it believed to be authorized by § 1988. Id., at 643-644.
The controversy arose from the execution in 1969 of a judicial warrant to search for and seize illegal weapons within an apartment in Chicago occupied by nine members of the Black Panther Party. In the course of the search two of the apartment's occupants were killed by gunfire, and four others were wounded. The police seized various weapons and arrested the seven surviving occupants of the apartment. The survivors were indicated by a state grand jury on charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery, but the indictments ultimately were dismissed. Those seven persons and the legal representatives of the two persons killed are the respondents in these cases. Named as defendants in the respondents' suits were Cook Country, the City of Chicago, and various state and local officials allegedly involved in the search or its aftermath. Those officials are the petitioners in No. 79-912. After proceedings in the District Court and the Court of Appeals resulted in the dismissal of the complaint against the city and the county, see Hampton v. Chicago, 339 F. Supp. 695 (ND Ill. 1972), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 484 F.2d 602 (CA7 1973), the respondents filed an amended complaint naming as additional defendants the three Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and an informant who are the petitioners in No. 79-914.
The respondents based their claims on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985(3) (1976 ed., Supp. II), and 1986, and on provisions of the Constitution. They also alleged various causes of action under state law.
The statute by its terms thus permits the award of attorney's fees only to a "prevailing party." Accordingly, in the present cases, the Court of Appeals was authorized to award to the respondents the attorney's fees attributable to their appeal only if, by reason of obtaining a partial reversal of the trial court's judgment, they "prevailed" within the meaning of § 1988. The Court of Appeals believed that they had prevailed with respect to the appeal in this case, resting its conclusion upon the following appellate rulings favorable to the respondents: (1) the reversal of the District Court's judgment directing verdicts against them, save with respect to certain of the defendants; (2) the reversal of the District Court's denial of their motion to discover the identity of an informant; and (3) the direction to the District Court on remand to consider allowing further discovery, and to conduct a hearing on the respondents' contention that the conduct of some of the petitioners in response to the trial court's discovery orders warranted the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). While the respondents did prevail on these matters in the sense that the Court of Appeals overturned several rulings against them by the District Court, they were not, we have concluded, "prevailing" parties in the sense intended by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as amended.
The legislative history of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 indicates that a person may in some circumstances be a "prevailing party" without having obtained a favorable "final judgment following a full trial on the merits," H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 7 (1976). See also S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 5 (1976). Thus for example, "parties may be considered to have prevailed when they vindicate rights through a consent judgment or without formally obtaining relief," ibid. See also H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7, and cases cited; Dawson v. Pastrick, 600 F.2d 70, 78 (CA7 1979); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 279-281 (CA1 1978).
It is evident also that Congress contemplated the award of fees pendente lite in some cases. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5; H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7-8. But it seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit such an interlocutory award only to a party who has established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims, either in the trial court or on appeal. The congressional Committee Reports described what were considered to be appropriate circumstances for such an award by reference to two cases — Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696 (1974), and Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1970). S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5; H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 8. In each of those cases the party to whom fees were awarded had established the liability of the opposing party, although final remedial orders had not been entered. The House Committee Report, moreover, approved the standard suggested by this Court in Bradley, that "`the entry of any order that determines substantial rights of the parties may be an appropriate occasion upon which to consider the propriety of an award of counsel fees. . .,'" H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 8, quoting Bradley v. Richmond School Board, supra, at 723, n. 28. Similarly, the Senate Committee Report explained that the award of counsel fees pendente lite would be "especially appropriate where a party has prevailed on an important matter in the course of litigation, even when he ultimately does not prevail on all issues." S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5 (emphasis added). It seems apparent from these passages that Congress intended to permit the interim award of counsel fees only when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims. For only in that event has there been a determination of the "substantial rights of the parties," which Congress determined was a necessary foundation for departing from the usual rule in this country that each party is to bear the expense of his own attorney.
The provision for counsel fees in § 1988 was patterned upon the attorney's fees provisions contained in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3 (b) and 2000e-5(k), and § 402 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 l (e). S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 2 (1976); H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 5 (1976). Those provisions have been construed by the Courts of Appeals to permit the award of counsel fees only to a party who has prevailed on the merits of a claim. See Bly v. McLeod, 605 F.2d 134, 137 (CA4 1979) (Voting Rights Act); Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CA9 1978) (same); Grubbs v. Butz, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 20-21, 548 F.2d 973, 975-976 (1976) (Title VII); Sperling v. United States, 515 F.2d 465, 485 (CA3 1975) (same). See also Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 418 (1978) ("[W]hen a district court awards counsel fees [under the Civil Rights Act of 1964] to a prevailing plaintiff, it is awarding them against a violator of federal law"). But cf. Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 503 F.2d 1131, 1133 (CA9 1974).
The respondents have of course not prevailed on the merits of any of their claims. The Court of Appeals held only that the respondents were entitled to a trial of their cause. As a practical matter they are in a position no different from that they would have occupied if they had simply defeated the defendants' motion for a directed verdict in the trial court. The jury may or may not decide some or all of the issues in favor of the respondents. If the jury should not do so on remand in these cases, it could not seriously be contended that the respondents had prevailed. See Swietlowich v. Bucks County, 620 F.2d 33, 34 (CA3 1980). Nor may they fairly be said to have "prevailed" by reason of the Court of Appeals' other interlocutory dispositions, which affected only the extent of discovery. As is true of other procedural or evidentiary rulings, these determinations may affect the disposition on the merits, but were themselves not matters on which a party could "prevail" for purposes of shifting his counsel fees to the opposing party under § 1988. See Bly v. McLeod, 605 F.2d 134, 137 (CA4 1979).
The Court of Appeals stated that, in reversing the directed verdicts, it was "not passing on the ultimate validity of [the respondents'] claims," 600 F.2d, at 621, n. 20. Indeed, Chief Judge Fairchild emphasized in his concurring opinion that the court's use of the phrase "`prima facie' case" in referring to the evidence adduced by the respondents should not be taken to mean that at "any stage of this case . . . the evidence compelled a verdict for [the respondents] unless rebutted." Id., at 648.
I join the Court's opinion insofar as it reverses the award of attorney's fees entered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As I would grant the petition filed by the federal defendants in its entirety, I dissent from the denial of certiorari in No. 79-914.
"Each of the Federal defendants was called by plaintiffs as adverse witnesses. Each testified extensively and denied knowledge or [ sic], or participation in, a plan, or an agreement, or a conspiracy between themselves, or between them or any of them, and any and all of the State defendants to violate plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights through conduct of the search of the apartment, or prior thereto, or after the occurrence, or otherwise. Their denials were uncontradicted and unimpeached by any testimony whatsoever." Id., at 189a-190a.
There is no question that the FBI viewed that organization, which openly advocated armed resistance to authority and had a documented record of violence, as a serious threat to public safety and to the lives of law enforcement officers. But the issue at trial was not whether the FBI had a program designed to discredit the Black Panthers, or even whether the program had produced excesses. The only issue was whether these federal defendants conspired with state officers to conduct an unlawful search in which excessive force would be used or, subsequently, to harass the plaintiffs with malicious prosecutions. See id., at 648-649 (Fairchild, C. J., concurring).
Summarizing evidence of record, Judge Pell's dissent described the party as an "extremist, paramilitary, uniformed organization. . . . It was a violent, revolutionary organization, which by party edict required its members to own and know how to use weapons and to have access to more than one weapon." Id., at 654.
Butz rejected a claim that all highly placed federal officials should be absolutely immune from liability for civil rights violations. But federal officials, like state officials used under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, have qualified immunity from suit. They therefore are liable only when they "discharge their duties in a way that is known to them to violate . . . a clearly established constitutional rule." 438 U.S., at 507. In Butz, we emphasized that absolute immunity is unnecessary to protect the public interest in "encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority," id., at 506, because qualified immunity shields officials from liability for good-faith mistakes. We predicted that such immunity would prove "workable," because "firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" would permit "[i]nsubstantial lawsuits [to] be quickly terminated." In particular, "damages suits concerning constitutional violations need not proceed to trial, but can be terminated on a properly supported motion for summary judgment. . . ." Id., at 507-508. The District Court heeded this admonition.
It is not clear to me that the award of attorney's fees in this case was in error because "respondents have of course not prevailed on the merits of any of their claims." Ante, at 758. The Court concedes that Congress in passing the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 contemplated the award of attorney's fees pendente lite in certain instances, and that a litigant may be a "prevailing party" for purposes of the Act without obtaining final judgment on the merits following a full trial. It is sufficient if there has been a determination of "`substantial rights of the parties,'" ante, at 757, quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 8 (1976).