Court Opinion

ID: 9496314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:23:06.02017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:29.437335
License: Public Domain

FLAUM, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
In my judgment, as Judge Rovner has indicated in her dissent, the plurality’s proposed benchmarks for answering the “compared to what?” question miss the mark. The appropriate focus should be between prisoner and nonprisoner litigants seeking fees under § 1988 — indeed, I believe that perhaps the most apt comparison would be between former prisoners bringing suit for violations that occurred during their imprisonment and current prisoners bringing suit for identical violations. Cf. Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998) (holding that prisoner as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h) does not comprehend a felon who has been released). Concluding that Judge Rovner has identified the correct approach for comparison *620purposes and agreeing with the well-reasoned analysis contained in Parts II and III of her opinion, I respectfully dissent.