Gillespie v. Brewer

• Decision Date: 25 January 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 80-0188-E(H).
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
• Parties: Gary GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, v. K.A. BREWER and C.W. McDonald, Defendants.

602 F. Supp. 218

Gary GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, v. K.A. BREWER and C.W. McDonald, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 80-0188-E(H).

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins Division.

January 25, 1985.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Timothy Cogan, Wheeling, W. Va., for plaintiff.

Dana Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of W. Va. Attorney General, Charleston, W. Va., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HADEN, Chief Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff's counsel petitions the Court for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The action upon which this petition is based alleged Plaintiff's civil rights were violated by members of the West Virginia Department of Public Safety during the November, 1979, security shakedown imposed at the West Virginia State Penitentiary at Moundsville following a mass escape from that institution. By Executive Order No. 3-79 issued on November 20, 1979, then Governor Rockefeller found that the penitentiary imposed "an imminent threat of a disaster of major proportion to the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of this State" and, therefore, declared a state of emergency pursuant to W.Va.Code, § 15-5-6. The Order set forth remedial actions to be implemented by the Superintendent of the Department of Public Safety to restore order and security at the prison. The original complaint filed by the Plaintiff pro se named as Defendants John D. Rockefeller IV and Harley Mooney who were, at the time of the alleged incident, Governor of the State of West Virginia and Superintendent of the Department of Public Safety (commonly referred to as the state police), respectively. The complaint alleged the Plaintiff was beaten by state police officers and bitten by an attack dog upon the command of a state police officer.¹

By Order entered December 18, 1980, this Court appointed Petitioner and two other attorneys (who do not join in this fee petition) to represent the Plaintiff and 14 other inmates who had filed civil actions in forma pauperis seeking redress for civil rights violations allegedly occurring during the security shakedown. On September 18, 1981, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave of Court to amend the complaint so as to include West Virginia Department of Public Safety personnel Corporal K.A. Brewer and Trooper C.A. McDonald, who were identified by the Plaintiff as the persons who assaulted him. The amended complaint was filed on September 30, 1981. The amended complaint prayed for $50,000 compensatory and $50,000 punitive damages. After the Defendants in the eleven similar cases prevailed at trial, the Plaintiff in this case accepted the Defendants' $200 settlement offer. The settlement agreement included a clause in which all parties agreed to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.

II. Requirements for Award of Attorney's Fees

The Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Act of 1976 provides that in any action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the district court "in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the cost." The Fourth Circuit has interpreted this statute as requiring a two-step analysis in determining the appropriateness of such an award. Bonnes v. Long, 599 F.2d 1316 (4th Cir.1979) cert. denied 455 U.S. 961, 102 S.Ct. 1476, 71 L.Ed.2d 681 (1982). The trial court must first decide whether the litigant seeking the award of attorney's fees is the "prevailing party". 599 F.2d at 1318. If the Court decides the party represented by the fee claimant has prevailed, the Court must then decide, based on its informed discretion, whether a fee should be awarded. 599 F.2d at 1318. To determine the propriety of a fee award in this case, the Court will address the two areas of inquiry prescribed by Bonnes.

A. Prevailing Party. It should be noted at the outset of this discussion that the fact that this litigation was resolved via a settlement agreement as opposed to a trial on the merits does not preclude this Court from finding that the Plaintiff is the prevailing party herein. It is well-established that the term "prevailing party" encompasses a plaintiff who obtains a favorable settlement as opposed to a judgment issued by a court or jury. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); Smith v. University of North Carolina, 632 F.2d 316 (4th Cir. 1980); Bonnes v. Long, 599 F.2d at 1318; Chicano Police Officers' Association v. Stover, 624 F.2d 127 (10th Cir.1980); Dawson v. Pastrick, 600 F.2d 70 (7th Cir.1979); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (1st Cir.1978); Brown v. Culpepper, 559 F.2d 274 (5th Cir.1977); Parker v. Matthews, 411 F.Supp. 1059 (D.D.C.1976) affirmed sub nom Parker v. Califano, 561 F.2d 320 (D.C.Cir.1977). It is also clear that to be a "prevailing party", one need not win on every issue or obtain all of the relief requested. Disabled in Action v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 685 F.2d 881 (4th Cir.1982); Brown v. Culpepper, 559 F.2d at 277; Bly v. McLeod, 605 F.2d 134 (4th Cir.1979); Bonnes v. Long, 599 F.2d at 1318; Lytle v. Commissioners of Election of Union County, 541 F.2d 421 (4th Cir.1976); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d at 278-79. This rather broad view of what constitutes a prevailing party is consistent with the fact that, in matters of statutory construction, the "Courts have taken an extremely liberal view on nearly every interpretive question that has arisen thus far under Section 1988." Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1275 (5th Cir. 1980);² see also Mid-Hudson Legal Services, Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1978).

Applying these principles to the case at bar, it appears that the only element of this case that mitigates against a finding that the Plaintiff is the prevailing party is the amount of the settlement — $200. This relatively low monetary amount arguably makes the agreement vulnerable to allegations that it is simply a nuisance settlement. This is precisely what the Defendants contend, arguing that the small dollar amount of the settlement is evidence that the case was settled only for nuisance value in order to save the cost of further litigation. The Defendants also point to their successes at the trials of the eleven other similar cases as further proof that the agreement was purely a nuisance settlement.³ The Defendants contend that the courts have refused to award attorneys' fees in cases involving nuisance settlements. However, the four cases cited by the Defendants in support of their proposition⁴ have very little, if any persuasive value for the simple reason that none of these cases involved a nuisance settlement. The Chicano Police Officers' Association and Parker cases do contain language to the effect that attorneys' fees are not properly awarded in nuisance cases.⁵ However, inasmuch as these cases had nothing whatsoever to do with nuisance cases, the statements contained therein referred to above, and reproduced in the margin, are perhaps more notable as classic examples of dicta, rather than as authority on the issue of whether attorneys' fees should be awarded in nuisance cases. In any event, the matter under scrutiny is not susceptible to such a simplistic approach. The determination of whether a plaintiff is the prevailing party cannot be made by attempting to affix such an ambiguous label as "nuisance settlement" to the final compromise reached by the litigants. The difficulty in determining the applicability of such a nebulous term as "nuisance settlement" is illustrated by this case. The Plaintiff points to the unsuccessful prosecution of the eleven similar cases and to the Defendants' decision to settle this case as evidence that the settlement of this action was not reached merely for nuisance value. The Defendants, on the other hand, rely upon the same evidence to support their claim that the settlement was in fact a nuisance settlement. Fortunately, the Fourth Circuit has set forth a specific test to be employed in deciding whether the party represented by the fee claimant was the "prevailing party" for purposes of awarding attorney's fees under Section 1988. Therefore, this Court will forsake Defendants' suggested inquiry into whether the parties' agreement is a nuisance settlement in favor of applying the more precise test required in this Circuit.⁶

In Bonnes the Fourth Circuit described the manner in which the trial court should decide whether a fee claimant is the "prevailing party" as follows:

"This inquiry is properly a pragmatic one of both fact and law that will ordinarily range outside the merits of the basic controversy. Its initial focus might well be on establishing the precise factual/legal condition that the fee claimant has sought to change or effect so as to gain a benefit or be relieved of a burden. With this condition taken as a benchmark, inquiry may then turn to whether as a quite practical matter the outcome, in whatever form it is realized, is one to which the plaintiff fee claimant's efforts contributed in a significant way, and which does involve an actual conferral of benefit or relief from burden when measured against a benchmark condition."

Bonnes, 599 F.2d at 1319.⁷

As noted previously, one can "prevail" by obtaining a favorable settlement and the prevailing party need not win on every issue or obtain all the relief requested. See cases cited supra at p. 221. Having secured from Defendants a $200 payment in satisfaction of his claim against them, the Plaintiff is, at least ostensibly, the "prevailing party" as a "quite practical matter". However, the Defendants have put this payment in contention by arguing that inasmuch as Plaintiff prayed for $100,000 compensation in his pleadings, he cannot now claim to have prevailed when he obtained only $200, or less than one-half of one percent of the "benchmark" ad damnum. For the reasons discussed...