Opinion ID: 429227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Award Of Attorney's Fees to the Individual Defendants.

Text: 49 For a defendant to be considered a prevailing party and entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 (1976), the court must find that the plaintiff's action was vexatious, frivolous, or brought to harass or embarrass the defendant. Hensley v. Eckerhart, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937 n. 2, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980); Badillo v. Central Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160 at 1163 (7th Cir.1983). Although the plaintiff's subjective bad faith is not a prerequisite to a fee award in favor of the defendant, the merit of the plaintiff's claim should be judged without regard to the fact that the plaintiff has lost on it. Only actions that are groundless or without foundation will give rise to an attorney's fee award for the defendant. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 14, 101 S.Ct. at 178. 50 The district court found that in this case the facts are such that all of the defendants except the City of Chicago are entitled to recover attorney's fees against the plaintiff. Tikalsky v. City of Chicago, No. 78 C 3260, slip op. at 14 (N.D.Ill. March 30, 1983). The court did not explain what the facts were that led to its conclusion that the individual defendants were entitled to attorney's fees, nor did it refer to the legal standard for awarding attorney's fees to defendants. In reaching its conclusion, however, the district court necessarily held, albeit implicitly, that plaintiff's false arrest and excessive force claims against the arresting officers and her strip search claim against the defendants other than the City were without foundation. 51 In order to facilitate review of district judges' discretion in awarding attorney's fees, it is necessary that the district judge make sufficient factual findings to enable the appellate court to track his decision. Sanchez v. Schwartz, 688 F.2d 503, 506 (7th Cir.1982). See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 103 S.Ct. at 1941 (It remains important ... for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.). The district judge made no finding that plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district court properly exercised its discretion squarely within the permissible bounds of [the statute]. Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 424, 98 S.Ct. 694, 701, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). 52 We find it unnecessary, however, to issue a remand so that the district court can explain why the facts, when judged against the appropriate legal standard, warrant recovery of attorney's fees by each of the individual defendants. Only recently we observed that generally cases in which fees have been assessed against a plaintiff have been limited to situations where plaintiff's conduct was abusive, or merely a disguised effort to harass or embarrass the defendant. Badillo v. Central Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160 at 1164. We cannot say, after a thorough review of the record, that plaintiff's conduct in bringing these three claims arose to such a level; the facts simply cannot support a conclusion that plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants were unreasonable, vexatious, or frivolous. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court awarding attorney's fees to the individual defendants. 53