Anderson v. Morris

• Decision Date: 01 September 1981
• Docket Number: Nos. 81-1007,81-1008,s. 81-1007
• Parties: John B. ANDERSON, Appellant, and D. A. Bert Booth, Kevin P. McCleaf, Gerald M. Eisenstat, Plaintiffs, v. Willard A. MORRIS, in his official capacity as State Administrator of the Election Laws, State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Theodore N. Clark, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; James W. Johnson, in his official capacity as Vice-Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Reginald A. Asplen, in his official capacity as a member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Karen Lancaster, in her official capacity as a member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Sylvia Raphael, in her official capacity as a member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; State Administrative Board of Election Laws, Appellees. John B. ANDERSON, D. A. Bert Booth, Kevin P. McCleaf, Gerald M. Eisenstat, Appellees, v. Willard A. MORRIS, in his official capacity as State Administrator of the Election Laws, State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Theodore N. Clark, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; James W. Johnson, in his official capacity as Vice-Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Reginald A. Asplen, in his official capacity as a member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Karen Lancaster, in her official capacity as a member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Sylvia Raphael, in her official capacity as a member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws; State Administrative Board of Election Laws, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 246

658 F.2d 246

John B. ANDERSON, Appellant, and D. A. Bert Booth, Kevin P. McCleaf, Gerald M. Eisenstat, Plaintiffs, v. Willard A. MORRIS, in his official capacity as State

Administrator of the Election Laws, State Administrative

Board of Election Laws; Theodore N. Clark, in his official

capacity as Chairman of the State Administrative Board of

Election Laws; James W. Johnson, in his official capacity as

Vice-Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election

Laws; Reginald A. Asplen, in his official capacity as a

member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws;

Karen Lancaster, in her official capacity as a member of the

State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Sylvia Raphael,

in her official capacity as a member of the State

Administrative Board of Election Laws; State Administrative

Board of Election Laws, Appellees.

John B. ANDERSON, D. A. Bert Booth, Kevin P. McCleaf, Gerald

M. Eisenstat, Appellees, v. Willard A. MORRIS, in his official capacity as State

Administrator of the Election Laws, State Administrative

Board of Election Laws; Theodore N. Clark, in his official

capacity as Chairman of the State Administrative Board of

Election Laws; James W. Johnson, in his official capacity as

Vice-Chairman of the State Administrative Board of Election

Laws; Reginald A. Asplen, in his official capacity as a

member of the State Administrative Board of Election Laws;

Karen Lancaster, in her official capacity as a member of the

State Administrative Board of Election Laws; Sylvia Raphael,

in her official capacity as a member of the State

Administrative Board of Election Laws; State Administrative

Board of Election Laws, Appellants.

Nos. 81-1007, 81-1008.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 6, 1981.

Decided Sept. 1, 1981.

Henry R. Lord, Thomas J. Gisriel, Baltimore, Md. (Michael C. Powell, Piper & Marbury, Mitchell Rogovin, George T. Frampton, Jr., Ellen M. Semonoff, Rogovin, Stern & Huge, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant/appellees.

Diana G. Motz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. of Md., Robert A. Zarnoch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees/appellants.

Before BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and RICHARD C. ERWIN, United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:

John B. Anderson appeals from an order of the district court's awarding him $10,000 in attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Anderson contends that the court considered improper factors in reducing his fee award to less than 25 percent of the amount he requested. The State of Maryland cross-appeals, alleging that the court lacked jurisdiction to award any fees because the request was untimely. Finding that the court had jurisdiction but applied incorrect legal standards, we remand.

I

On June 25, 1980, Anderson filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland's filing deadline for independent Presidential candidates. The district court on August 6 held the filing deadline to be unconstitutional and directed the state to place Anderson's name on the ballot for the 1980 Presidential election. 500 F.Supp. 1095. We affirmed on September 17. 636 F.2d 55 (4th Cir.).

Twelve days later, Anderson filed his motion for attorneys' fees and submitted an affidavit detailing the work performed by law firms from Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland. The affidavit gave $43,453.12 as his base request. Anderson arrived at this figure by multiplying the firm's customary hourly rates by the actual hours spent, less 25 percent of the total time because of possible duplication of efforts. The state opposed the request as untimely.

The district court ruled that the demand was timely, that Anderson was the prevailing party, and that no special circumstances justified denial of a fee. It reduced the award to $10,000, however. Although the court acknowledged the skill, experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, it reasoned that the case was a "cause celebre" that gave "intangible benefits" to the attorneys and law firms involved in "such high-profile litigation." Because of these benefits and because, according to the court, many in the legal community would have undertaken the litigation with the expectation of little or no fees, the court found the amount requested to be excessive.

II

The state argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to make an award because Anderson did not move to amend the final judgment of August 6 by adding a request for attorneys' fees within 10 days as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We cannot accept the premise of this argument, because the order of August 6 was not a final judgment.

An order is final only if it addresses all claims for relief. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976). The legislative history of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 specifies that attorneys' fees are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain compliance with the civil rights laws. S.Rep.No.94-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. at 5, reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5908, 5913. Both the original and amended complaints in this case included a request for attorneys' fees. The district court's order directing the state to place Anderson on the ballot made no reference to the request for attorneys' fees. Because it failed to address all the prayers for relief, it was not a final judgment. See Gurule v. Wilson, 635 F.2d 782 (10th Cir. 1980); Richerson v. Jones, 551 F.2d 918 (3d Cir. 1977). It was instead an interlocutory order, which was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as an order granting injunctive relief. The district court retained jurisdiction over the case and had ample authority to award attorneys' fees. ¹

III

In awarding attorneys' fees, however, the district court did not apply the proper legal standard. The court noted that Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir. 1978), requires 12 factors to be considered, ² but it reduced the award to $10,000 because of the attractiveness of the case and the publicity it received. Such considerations are not permissible criteria.

The purpose of the Attorney's Fees Awards Act is to compensate prevailing plaintiffs for their costs: "(C)itizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate (their civil) rights in court." S.Rep.No.94-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. at 2, reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5908, 5910. The entitlement to fees is thus the plaintiffs', not their attorneys', and intangible benefits to counsel do not compensate plaintiffs. Moreover, the legislative history specifies that counsel are to be paid "as is traditional with attorneys compensated by a...