Fuentes v. White

• Decision Date: 17 March 1989
• Docket Number: No. 85-4162-R.,85-4162-R.
• Citation: 709 F. Supp. 1026
• Parties: Dario FUENTES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cindy WHITE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

709 F. Supp. 1026

Dario FUENTES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cindy WHITE, et al., Defendants.

No. 85-4162-R.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

March 17, 1989.

Bill Piatt and Michael Kaye, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiffs.

Reid Stacey, Legal Div., State Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Topeka, Kan., for Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

Roberta Sue McKenna, Staff Counsel, Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Topeka, Kan., for White, Hamilton and Lichtfield.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROGERS, District Judge.

This matter is presently before the court upon plaintiffs' counsel's motion for attorney's fees. Plaintiffs' counsel seeks fees because he contends that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party in this litigation. Having carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties, the court is now prepared to rule. Defendants have requested oral argument on the motion but we deem it unnecessary.

In considering plaintiffs' counsel's motion, we are guided by the Supreme Court's caution that a "request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Nevertheless, the arguments raised by the parties here have virtually required the court to consider this case anew.

Both the procedural and the factual background of this action are important to the court's decision. The court shall begin with a review of the procedural background. This action was filed on April 24, 1985. In the complaint, plaintiffs asserted civil rights claims and sought damages and equitable relief. Plaintiffs are Maria de Jesus Cerca and her three minor children — Dario Fuentes, Iris Fuentes, and David Fuentes. The complaint alleged that the defendant Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS), acting through its employees, defendants Cindy White, Brad Hamilton and Betty Litchfield, denied the minor children public assistance because their parents were not citizens of the United States.

Defendant SRS filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 1985 based primarily on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiffs apparently believed that the motion had merit and signed a journal entry dismissing SRS with prejudice from this action. The court approved the journal entry on May 28, 1985. The parties then agreed to dismissal of the entire case with the exception of the allocation of costs and the awarding of attorney's fees. The court signed an order on July 22, 1985 which dismissed this action. This order, which had been prepared by the parties, read as follows:

This matter having come before the Court upon the motion of all parties to dismiss and the Court being fully advised in the premises and the Court finding that the parties have settled this case to the satisfaction of each, reserving for further determination by this Court the allocation of costs and the awarding of attorneys' fees, if any, to the Plaintiffs' attorneys herein,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the allocation of costs, and the awarding of attorneys' fees, if any, to Plaintiffs' attorneys is reserved pending further order of this Court.

Plaintiff's counsel filed the instant motion on July 29, 1985. Counsel contends that he is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because plaintiffs succeeded on significant issues, achieved some of the benefits sought, and caused substantial material changes in the defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $7,550.00 in attorney's fees, $105.00 in costs, and $589.50 for paralegal/interpreter expenses. Defendants argue that plaintiffs' counsel is not entitled to any fees or costs because plaintiffs did not prevail, even minimally, in this litigation.

The law applicable to the award of attorney's fees under the circumstances in this case was succinctly stated in Supre v. Ricketts, 792 F.2d 958, 962 (10th Cir.1986):

A plaintiff must be a "prevailing party" to recover an attorney's fee under § 1988. A plaintiff may prevail in the absence of a judicial determination or full litigation. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2574, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980). The test for determining whether a plaintiff is a prevailing party when there has been no adjudication was recently set forth in J. & J. Anderson, Inc. v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469 at 1475 10th Cir.1985, and contains two elements which must be satisfied. The plaintiff must demonstrate that his lawsuit is linked causally to the relief obtained, i.e., the suit must be a "substantial factor or a significant catalyst" in prompting the defendants to act or cease their behavior. He must also demonstrate that the defendant's conduct in response to the lawsuit was required by the Constitution or federal law, i.e., the defendant's actions must be legally required.

The first element primarily involves a factual inquiry: whether the lawsuit caused the defendant to act. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate this issue because it has dealt with the parties and can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case.... The second element primarily requires legal analysis, although the facts certainly bear on the outcome. (Footnote omitted.)

Also see Lovell v. City of Kankakee, 783 F.2d 95, 96-7 (7th Cir.1986).

If the plaintiffs are deemed prevailing parties, then they should recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 461 U.S. at 429, 103 S.Ct. at 1937. The court's discretion in denying attorney's fees to prevailing parties is quite narrow. Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 951 (10th Cir.1987). A defendant must make a strong showing of special circumstances to support denial of attorney's fees. J. & J. Anderson, Inc. v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469, 1474 (10th Cir.1985).

A determination of the first element of the inquiry set forth in Supre requires an examination of the factual background in this case. The court has developed the following factual background from the affidavits and exhibits that appear in the file. In March, 1985, plaintiff Maria de Jesus Cerca went to the SRS offices in Topeka, Kansas to make application for public assistance for her minor children. She is Hispanic and is not proficient in the English language. On March 11, 1985, she was informed by defendant Betty Litchfield that her application would be denied unless she provided the following information by March 25, 1985: (1) social security numbers for herself, her husband, and her two children; (2) wage verification from her husband from February 1, 1985 through March 11, 1985; and (3) proof of United States citizenship or current alien registration verification. The application was subsequently denied when Maria failed to produce the requested information. She was informed by SRS that she did have the right to a hearing if she disagreed with their decision.

On April 5, 1985, Maria contacted counsel and explained her situation. He decided to go with Maria to the SRS office and request a hearing. Plaintiffs' counsel and Maria were told to file a new application and were given new application forms. The applications were filled out by Maria with the aid of an interpreter, and Maria and her counsel returned to the SRS office on April 15, 1985. The application asked only for public assistance for her minor children. Maria and her counsel met with defendant White. White asked Maria for proof of citizenship and social security numbers for her and her husband. Counsel indicated to White that such a request was unlawful. White then stated that she needed to confer with her supervisor, defendant Brad Hamilton. White returned and told Maria and her counsel that the children were disqualified from any public assistance because of the parents' inability and unwillingness to prove they were citizens of the United States. White wrote plainly on the applications: "Parents not legal U.S. citizens." She also noted the following on the application next to the names of the childrens' parents: "Not citizens. No SSN social security number reported." Counsel asked for an explanation of SRS policy on this issue. White wrote a memo and gave it to counsel, which reads as follows:

TO: Maria de Jesus Cerca

RE: Denial of application for medical and food stamps

Ms. Cerca's application for medical and food stamps were denied thru the Walk-In procedure on 4/15/85.

Ms. Cerca and her husband David Fuentes are the legal parents of the children they are applying for, but they along with 1 child (Ulisis) are not U.S. Citizens. They were given the opportunity to supply the proof of citizenship and Social Security numbers but refused to provide the information as they thought it unnecessary to provide it. They were verbally told that they could not be left off the cases as they are the legally responsible adults for their children. Consequently the entire household is ineligible.

Counsel returned to his office and prepared a written request for a hearing. In this request, counsel noted that he believed that the position of the SRS requiring citizenship information for the parents of the minor children was unconstitutional as a violation of their equal protection rights. This request for hearing was delivered to the SRS in person on April 17, 1985. Later that day, counsel received a telephone call from defendant Hamilton indicating that counsel had not submitted the correct form for requesting a hearing. On April 18, 1985, Maria brought counsel another denial of her original application from defendant Litchfield indicating a denial on April 12, 1985.

Thereafter, counsel decided to file an action in this court. This case was filed on April 24, 1985. In an answer filed on May 15, 1985, the defendants indicated that the plaintiffs' application was neither approved nor denied...