Document: 488 U.S. 1 109 S.Ct. 202 102 L.Ed.2d James A. RHODES et al.v.Larry STEWART. No. 88-139. Oct. 17, 1988. Page 2 PER CURIAM. After entry of a judgment for the plaintiffs in suit by two prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, District Court Southern Ohio, Eastern Division, ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs' attorney's fees pursuant There is no entitlement fees, however, unless requesting party prevails; and time entered its underlying one had died other was longer custody. In this posture, were not prevailing parties rule we set forth Hewitt v. Helms, 482 755, 107 2672, 96 654 (1987), Appeals Sixth Circuit erred affirming award Court. * On January 1978, while custody Ohio Department Rehabilitation Correction, Albert Reese Larry Stewart filed complaint alleging violations their First Fourteenth Amendment rights officials who refused them permission subscribe magazine. April 2, 1981, issued an opinion order, later amended respects pertinent case. The court ruled that correctional applied proper procedural substantive standards denying inmates request, compliance with those standards. 3 Two months later, favor attorneys amount $5,306.25. affirmed. 703 F.2d 566 (1982). We granted certiorari, vacated judgment, remanded case further consideration light Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 103 1933, 76 40 (1983). Rhodes Stewart, 952, 2422, 77 1311 remand from Appeals, confirmed earlier award. 4 None opinions or orders cited thus far made reference to, showed awareness of, salient facts: on February 18, 1979; sole respondent now before us, paroled March 15, given final release parole 1980. consequence, when original order neither plaintiff State's For reasons remain unexplained, petitioners here did raise matter until appeal Court's after remand. 5 A divided upheld concluding mootness claim undermine respondent's status as eligible fees. Affirmance 845 327 (1988). unpublished opinion, majority characterized relief received declaratory relief. panel noted our recent holding supra, must receive some merits his he can be said have prevailed within meaning It observed, Hewitt, unlike won concluded justified granting II 6 misapprehended Hewitt. Although nothing suggested such party's automatically renders Indeed, contrary proposition: 7 "In all civil litigation, judicial decree end but means. At rainbow lies action (or cessation action) defendant produces—the payment damages, specific performance, termination conduct. Redress sought through court, defendant. This less true than any action. real value pronouncement—what makes it resolution 'case controversy' rather advisory opinion—is settling dispute which affects behavior towards plaintiff." U.S., at 761, S.Ct., 2676 (emphasis original). 8 respect, different judgment. will constitute relief, purposes 1988, if, only toward plaintiff. case, there result. lawsuit brought class action, plaintiffs. modification prison policies magazine subscriptions could way benefited either plaintiff, whom dead released order. controlled where fact "long since been prison" "could get redress" changes policy caused compelled conclusion ineligible 763, 2677. moot issued, therefore afforded whatsoever. absence cannot meet threshold requirement 1988 prevail, consequence entitled 9 Certiorari granted, decision reversed. 10 so ordered. 11 Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. 12 I continue believe unfair litigants damaging integrity accuracy decisions reverse summarily without benefit full briefing question decided. Buchanan Stanships, Inc., 485 265, 108 1130, 99 289 (1988) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Commissioner McCoy, 484 3, 217, 98 (1987) Montana Hall, 481 400, 405-410, 1825, 1827, 95 354 dissenting). 13 Rules urge filing petitions certiorari focus exceptional need review Summary disposition flies face legitimate expectations seeking deprives opportunity argue Moreover, leads greater helps reduce much humanly possible inevitable incidence error opinions. Finally, practice summary demonstrates insufficient respect lower judges own dissenting colleagues 14 my view considering should, very least, inform invite submit supplemental briefs merits. unconvinced slight would unduly burden benefits increasing fairness decisionmaking according courts more outweigh associated modest accommodation. 15 dissent. 16 BLACKMUN, BRENNAN joins, 17 Because usually do remedies cases are moot, novel legal issues presented require plenary consideration, least time. just deny petition certiorari. Inasmuch, has chosen grant petition, give argument. reversal inappropriate, 18 reverses Appeals' being "our [v. ]," ante, 3. That clearly does control here. never obtained "formal favor," 2676, whether nonetheless qualify "prevailing party," thereby making him because about changed defendants' him. 19 Here, obtain although incarcerated Thus, presents party" enough win one's lawsuit. decide question, nor have, concern "all judgment." 760, 2676. 20 quotes passage construes stating practical consequences, suffice Ante, 3—8. context, simply bolsters point nonfinal "statement law" may deemed functional "equivalent relief" ironic if purported resolve extols "judicial pronouncement" limited resolving particular "case controversy" hand rendering "advisory opinion" facts immediate dispute. Ibid. meant tell how But even did, basis reason pronouncements lose controlling authority they attempt questions time.1 21 Quite apart interpretation doubts term ordinary usage, "prevailing" means winning. context winning obtaining redress favor. While victory empty one, nonetheless. natural use language, often speak victories empty, hollow, Pyrrhic. anomalous saying derived tangible Certainly language statute obviously compel warrant reversal.2 22 should become moot. "prevailed" ordinarily deprive fees.3 Perhaps exception defect goes court's jurisdiction, does, issue obvious.4 surely decided oral 23 dissent See United States Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 263, 272, 275, 3081, 3086, 3087, 73 754 (1982) (dissenting opinion) (summary inappropriate prior precedents "mandate" "compel" reversal). also EEOC FLRA, 476 19, 26, n. 5, 106 1678, 1682, 90 (1986) (STEVENS, dissenting) (this customarily reserves dispositions settled law). Ganey Edwards, 759 337, 340 (CA4 1985) (plaintiff favor). addition, Courts held nominal damages suffices E.g., Skoda Fontani, 646 1193 (CA7 1981); Perez University Puerto Rico, 600 (CA1 1979). example, failed limitations defense became final, assume object ground barred limitations. Cf. Garrity Sununu, 752 727, 736, 8, 738 1984) (an Eleventh previously raised used "to collaterally attack solely purpose avoiding award") (footnote omitted).

Category: 5