Opinion ID: 441999
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Necessity of Prevailing on Particular Claim

Text: 45 Although we here hold that attorney's fees may be appropriate based on independent constitutional claims, fees are not necessarily permissible on the particular facts in this case. 46 The district court stated that it was awarding fees due to plaintiff's independent complaints. Teresa Diane alleged a violation of her right to procedural due process; Mrs. Marilyn P. complained that her right to privacy had been infringed. In Smith v. Robinson, the intervening decision discussed above, however, the Supreme Court held that mere allegation of a statutory violation will no longer suffice as a basis for attorney's fees. After Smith, in order to recover attorney's fees, a prevailing party must not only allege a cause of action independent of EAHCA but also must prevail on that independent issue. 104 S.Ct. at 3471. The Court stated that where ... petitioners have presented distinctly different claims for different relief, based on different facts and legal theories, and have prevailed only on a non-fee claim, they are not entitled to a fee award simply because the other claim was a constitutional claim that could be asserted through Sec. 1983. Ibid. The court noted that the opposite conclusion would allow any EAHCA plaintiff to secure attorney's fees merely by including in their pleadings a challenge that the administrative process was unfair. Under this scenario, even if plaintiff's procedural challenge was defeated or ignored, attorney's fees would still be recoverable. The Court considered it unlikely that Congress intended such a result. 47 With this standard in mind, the district court on remand should award attorney's fees only to the extent that plaintiffs actually prevailed on constitutional claims. 6 Any additional fees based on mere allegations of constitutional violations should be vacated.