Court Opinion

ID: 2963875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:38.202507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:42.117727
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 1, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1852 

                                  RODOLFO A. VARGAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

             TIMOTHY R. E. KENNEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS DIRECTOR
             OF THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rodolfo A. Vargas on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Michael K. Marran on brief for appellee.
            _________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   In  1994, plaintiff/appellant  Rodolfo A.
                 ___________

            Vargas brought  suit alleging  that,  while employed  at  the

            Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management [DEM], he

            had been subject to racial harassment and had been terminated

            because of  his national origin,  both in violation  of Title

            VII of the  Civil Rights Act  of 1964, 42  U.S.C.   2000e  et
                                                                       __

            seq.   Judgment was entered  for defendant after  a three day
            ___

            bench  trial  and affirmed  by  this  court.   Subsequent  to

            entering judgment,  the district court granted  the motion of

            the   defendant/appellee  for  attorneys'   fees  and  costs,

            purusant  to 42  U.S.C.    2000e-5(k).   Vargas'  appeals the

            grant of fees and costs.  We affirm.

                 A  prevailing  defendant  in  a  civil  rights  case  is

            entitled  to  fees  and  costs  only  if  the  defendant  can

            establish that  the plaintiff's suit  "was totally unfounded,

            frivolous,  or  otherwise unreasonable."    Case Marie  Hogar
                                                        _________________

            Geriatrico, Inc. v. Rivera-Santos, 38 F.3d 615, 618 (1st Cir.
            ________________    _____________

            1994) (citing cases).  Given that the district court is "most

            intimately familiar with the case and its nuances," Foster v.
                                                                ______

            Mydas Associates,  Inc., 943 F.2d  139, 144 (1st  Cir. 1991),
            _______________________

            and thus  in  the  best position  to  determine  whether  fee

            shifting is warranted, we  review an award of fees  and costs

            in a civil  rights case  only for abuse  of discretion,  Case
                                                                     ____

            Marie,  38 F.3d  at 618.   Nonetheless,  we do  require "that
            _____

            concrete  findings of fact be  made and that  the court below

            supply a  clear explanation  of  the reasons  undergirding  a

            particular fee award."  Peckham v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co.,
                                    _______    _________________________

            895 F.2d 830, 842 (1st Cir. 1990).  In addition, we have held

            that "an award  of attorney's fees to a  prevailing defendant

            must not  be oblivious of a  plaintiff's financial capacity."

            Charves  v. Western  Union Telegraph Co.,  711 F.2d  462, 465
            _______     ____________________________

            (1st Cir. 1983).

                 In  the instant  case,  the district  court conducted  a

            careful  review  of all  the  evidence  put  forward  by  the

            plaintiff and  then determined that there  was "absolutely no

            factual  basis for finding  that the  Defendant intentionally

            discriminated  against  the Plaintiff  or  to  find that  any

            treatment  the   Plaintiff  received   was   based  on   some

            discriminatory  animus because  of his  race."   We find  the

            reasons given by the district court for its fee shifting both

            clear and  firmly supported by  the record.   Moreover, after

            making its award, the court afforded plaintiff three separate

            opportunities to  present evidence of any  limited ability to

            pay the award.  Nevertheless, plaintiff, despite his claim of

            limited financial resources, steadfastedly refused to provide

            the  court  with  any   documentation  as  to  his  financial

            condition.  Having refused to meet the burden of establishing

            his  financial  condition,  plaintiff   cannot  be  heard  to

            complain  about any failure to  adjust the award  in light of

            that condition.  See Case Marie, 38 F.3d at 618 n.2.  
                             ___ __________

                 Finally, we  find no support  in the record  for Vargas'

            claim of judicial bias.

                                         -3-

                 The order of the district court is affirmed.* 
                                                    ________

                            
        ____________________

        * Appellee requests sanctions  against appellant, pursuant to  Fed. R.
        App. P. 38, for bringing a frivolous appeal.  However, Fed. R. App. P.
        38 requires "a separately filed motion."  Since no separate motion was
        filed in this case, the request for sanctions is denied.
                                                         ______

                                         -4-