Court Opinion

ID: 9471239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:27:44.381493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:19.476781
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would remand this case to the District Court because I do not believe that Judge Allen has considered the full outcome of this case in his denial of attorney fees to the plaintiffs. Judge Allen and the majority have thoroughly analyzed and compared the relief prayed for in the plaintiffs’ final complaint with the final judgment of the District Court. It is true that this limited comparison reveals that the court did not grant judgment favorable to any of the plaintiffs’ significant requests for relief. However, the defendants may have made marked changes in the level of care provided to patients at the Outwood facility since the instigation of this action. The plaintiffs allege that conditions at Outwood improved significantly after they filed the lawsuit and before trial. The plaintiffs argue that they prevailed at least in part, even though they received little of the formal relief requested in their complaint. As the Supreme Court stated in Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2574, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980):
Nothing in the language of § 1988 conditions the District Court’s power to award fees on full litigation of the issues or on a judicial determination that the plaintiff’s rights have been violated. Moreover, the Senate report expressly stated that “for purposes of the award of counsel fees, parties may be considered to have prevailed when they vindicate rights through a consent judgment or without formally obtaining relief.” (Citation omitted) (Emphasis added.)
I would remand for a determination by the District Court of whether, in light of Hensley v. Eckerhart, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), the plaintiffs have prevailed, in the broad sense of the term, on any major issues.