Court Opinion

ID: 9470407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:05:31.992746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:53.273946
License: Public Domain

LEWIS R. MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion states that the “only question with which we are concerned is: How much is Williams entitled to receive?” 702 F.2d at 975-976. On the contrary, I believe that is a question properly left to the discretion of the district court. Our review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in determining reasonable attorney’s fees for a prevailing party. Cappel v. Adams, 434 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir.1970). Under the facts of this case, I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion.
Appellant originally brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and class certification. In June of 1978, the defendants offered in settlement a Section 8 housing program, but appellant rejected the offer after reviewing its terms. Further settlement negotiations were unsuccessful, and on October 9, 1978, the defendants implemented their proposed housing program without appellant’s approval, and moved the district court to dismiss her action as moot. In March of 1979, the district court granted the defendants’ motion with respect to the injunctive aspects of appellant’s case since a Section 8 housing program had been implemented, but allowed her to continue claims for nominal and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.1 The same order extended time for discovery so that appellant could further investigate intentional discrimination, information necessary to support her claims for damages, and denied class certification. Order of March 21, 1979, Supplemental Record on Appeal, Vol. 3, at 474-80. Appellant eventually dismissed all remaining claims except those for attorney’s fees and costs. The district court then held that appellant was not a prevailing party and refused to award any attorney’s fees. Another panel of this court reversed and remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Williams v. City of Fair-burn, Georgia, 640 F.2d 635 (5th Cir.1981). On remand, the district court found that appellant prevailed only on the injunctive claim since she voluntarily dismissed the claims for nominal and punitive damages. The district court reasoned that appellant unwillingly prevailed on this issue on October 9, 1978, when the defendants implemented the Section 8 housing program, and accordingly refused to award the majority of fees and costs claimed by appellant for work done after that date. The district court did, however, award a total of $8,000 in fees and costs for work done before October 9, 1978, and for work done on the earlier appeal in which appellant prevailed.2 Appellant had claimed over $37,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.
The majority opinion, in awarding all fees and costs claimed after October 9, 1978, reasons that appellant was under a duty to test the adequacy of the housing program, *978thereby justifying further legal expenses. I disagree. Appellant had ample opportunity to review and consider the housing program when it was first proposed to her in June of 1978. She apparently believed the offer was inadequate, but after the program was implemented the district court held that it provided the relief she sought. The defendants should not be forced to pay for her mistake in evaluating the proposal. Moreover, the majority of time spent by appellant’s attorney after October 9, 1978, was for investigating intentional discrimination in pursuit of her damages claims. Appellant later abandoned these claims. In short, appellant prevailed on none of her original claims after the defendants implemented the Section 8 housing program, and thus I believe she is entitled to no attorney’s fees for work, other than the first appeal, done after that time. My position is consistent with numerous cases in which this court has held that when a party prevails on some issues and fails on others, then attorney’s fees should be awarded for only those claims on which the plaintiff prevails, provided work done for the successful and unsuccessful claims can be distinguished. See, e.g., Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc); Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391 (5th Cir.1980). In the present case, I believe October 9, 1978, the date on which the housing program was implemented, provides a perfect point at which to distinguish work done on successful claims from work done on unsuccessful claims. Of course, my ultimate concern with the rationale of the majority opinion is that future plaintiffs will have no incentive to accept a reasonable and fair settlement offer from defendants. Future plaintiffs, in reliance on this case, will have nothing to lose by continuing and prolonging litigation, knowing they can exact attorney’s fees for work done long after defendants offer or provide the relief sought.
Finally, even if I agreed with the majority opinion with respect to which fees and costs should be reimbursed, I would still dissent. The majority directs the district court to do precisely what we normally prohibit — awarding of attorney’s fees and costs without any examination of their reasonableness. This court has provided a specific set of guidelines for district courts to use in awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in civil rights cases. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974); Jones v. Diamond, supra. The district judge below carefully reviewed each of these guidelines in determining what amount would be reasonable in appellant’s case. I find no abuse of discretion in his determination. The majority, on the other hand, discusses none of these factors and broadly orders the district court to award all requested fees and costs.
For these reasons, I believe the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

. Thus, the majority opinion is somewhat misleading when it states that the district court disagreed with the defendants’ claim of mootness. 702 F.2d at 975.

. The majority opinion incorrectly states that the district court denied all attorney and pa-, ralegal costs before October 9, 1978, and all attorney time spent on the first appeal in this case. 702 F.2d at 975-976.