Opinion ID: 608191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attorneys' Fees of $49,000

Text: 27 The Morrises next argue the $49,000 awarded as § 1988 attorneys' fees in this § 1983 action is the property of Curtis and not his attorneys, citing as its support the Supreme Court's decision in Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747 (1986) and our ruling in United States v. McPeck, 910 F.2d 509 (8th Cir.1990). They then maintain the district court erred in not ruling they were entitled to both these § 1988 attorneys' fees and the underlying $11,000 awarded Curtis because their garnishment was prior and superior to Curtis'. 28 Curtis' attorneys argue they are entitled to the § 1988 attorneys' fees because to rule otherwise runs afoul of the purpose of the statute: to provide a private attorney general mechanism that encourages attorneys to prosecute constitutional violations by promising them attorneys' fees if they prevail. They also note that under Iowa state law they have a valid fee agreement and assignment of attorneys' fees. They maintain their lien was prior in time because the Morrises failed to properly follow the procedures of Iowa lien law. 29 The clear Congressional intent and purpose of § 1988 was to encourage attorneys to prosecute constitutional violations. See Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 86, 110 S.Ct. 1679, 1682, 109 L.Ed.2d 74 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1976). This is precisely what Curtis' attorneys did in prosecuting Curtis' civil rights claims against the police officials. Whatever priority the Morrises have with respect to their lien on the judgment in this case has no effect on the award of § 1988 fees. Accordingly, the district court properly ruled that Eichorn and Kutmus are entitled to their fees.