Hensley v. Eckerhart

Decision Date16 May 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-1244,81-1244
Citation461 U.S. 424,76 L.Ed.2d 40,103 S.Ct. 1933
PartiesC. Duane HENSLEY et al., Petitioners v. Thomas ECKERHART et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Respondents, on behalf of all persons involuntarily confined in the forensic unit of a Missouri state hospital, brought suit in Federal District Court against petitioner hospital officials, challenging the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the hospital. The District Court, after a trial, found constitutional violations in five of the six general areas of treatment. Subsequently, respondents filed a request for attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides that in federal civil rights actions "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." After determining that respondents were prevailing parties under § 1988 even though they had not succeeded on every claim, the District Court refused to eliminate from the attorney's fees award the hours spent by respondents' attorneys on the unsuccessful claims, finding that the significant extent of the relief clearly justified the award of a reasonable attorney's fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The District Court did not properly consider the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the attorney's fee award. The extent of a plaintiff's success is a crucial factor in determining the proper amount of an attorney's fee award under § 1988. Where the plaintiff failed to prevail on a claim unrelated to the successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee. Where a lawsuit consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not have his attorney's fee reduced simply because the district court did not adopt each contention raised. But where the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained. Pp. 429-440.

664 F.2d 294 (8th Cir., 1981), vacated and remanded.

Michael L. Boicourt, Jefferson City, Mo., for petitioners.

Stanley J. Eichner, Ann D. Lever, Ann D. Levers, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.

[Amicus Curiae Information from pages 425-426 intentionally omitted] Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides that in federal civil rights actions "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." The issue in this case is whether a partially prevailing plaintiff may recover an attorney's fee for legal services on unsuccessful claims.

I
A.

Respondents brought this lawsuit on behalf of all persons involuntarily confined at the Forensic Unit of the Fulton State Hospital in Fulton, Missouri. The Forensic Unit consists of two residential buildings for housing patients who are dangerous to themselves or others. Maximum-security patients are housed in the Marion O. Biggs Building for the Criminally Insane. The rest of the patients reside in the less restrictive Rehabilitation Unit.

In 1972 respondents filed a three-count complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri against petitioners, who are officials at the Forensic Unit and members of the Missouri Mental Health Commission. Count I challenged the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the Forensic Unit. Count II challenged the placement of patients in the Biggs Building without procedural due process. Count III sought compensation for patients who performed institution-maintaining labor.

Count II was resolved by a consent decree in December 1973. Count III largely was mooted in August 1974 when petitioners began compensating patients for labor pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. In April 1975 respondents voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and filed a new two-count complaint. Count I again related to the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the Forensic Unit. Count II sought damages, based on the Thirteenth Amendment, for the value of past patient labor. In July 1976 respondents voluntarily dismissed this back-pay count. Finally, in August 1977 respondents filed an amended one-count complaint specifying the conditions that allegedly violated their constitutional right to treatment.

In August 1979, following a three-week trial, the District Court held that an involuntarily committed patient has a constitutional right to minimally adequate treatment. 475 F.Supp. 908, 915 (WD Mo.1979). The court then found constitutional violations in five of six general areas: physical environment; individual treatment plans; least restrictive environment; visitation, telephone, and mail privileges; and seclusion and restraint.1 With respect to staffing, the sixth general area the District Court found that the Forensic Unit's staffing levels, which had increased during the litigation, were minimally adequate. 475 F.Supp., at 919-920. Petitioners did not appeal the District Court's decision on the merits.

B

In February 1980 respondents filed a request for attorney's fees for the period from January 1975 through the end of the litigation. Their four attorneys claimed 2,985 hours worked and sought payment at rates varying from $40 to $65 per hour. This amounted to approximately $150,000. Respondents also requested that the fee be enhanced by thirty to fifty percent, for a total award of somewhere between $195,000 and $225,000. Petitioners opposed the request on numerous grounds, including inclusion of hours spent in pursuit of unsuccessful claims.

The District Court first determined that respondents were prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 even though they had not succeeded on every claim. It then refused to eliminate from the award hours spent on unsuccessful claims:

"[Petitioners'] suggested method of calculating fees is based strictly on a mathematical approach comparing the total number of issues in the case with those actually prevailed upon. Under this method no consideration is given for the relative importance of various issues, the interrelation of the issues, the difficulty in identifying issues, or the extent to which a party may prevail on various issues." No. 75-CV-87-C, at 7 (WD Mo., Jan. 23, 1981), Record 220.

Finding that respondents "have obtained relief of significant import," Record 231, the District Court awarded a fee of $133,332.25. This award differed from the fee request in two respects. First, the court reduced the number of hours claimed by one attorney by thirty percent to account for his inex- perience and failure to keep contemporaneous records. Second, the court declined to adopt an enhancement factor to increase the award.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on the basis of the District Court's memorandum opinion and order. 664 F.2d 294 (1981). We granted certiorari, 455 U.S. 988, 102 S.Ct. 1610, 71 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982), and now vacate and remand for further proceedings.

II

In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), this Court reaffirmed the "American Rule" that each party in a lawsuit ordinarily shall bear its own attorney's fees unless there is express statutory authorization to the contrary. In response Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, authorizing the district courts to award a reasonable attorney's fee to prevailing parties in civil rights litigation. The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure "effective access to the judicial process" for persons with civil rights grievances. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 1 (1976). Accordingly, a prevailing plaintiff " 'should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.' " S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 4 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5912 (quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)).2

The amount of the fee, of course, must be determined on the facts of each case. On this issue the House Report simply refers to twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia High- way Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (CA5 1974).3 The Senate Report cites to Johnson as well and also refers to three district court decisions that "correctly applied" the twelve factors.4 One of the factors in Johnson, "the amount involved and the results obtained," indicates that the level of a plaintiff's success is relevant to the amount of fees to be awarded. The importance of this relationship is confirmed in varying degrees by the other cases cited approvingly in the Senate Report.

In Stanford Daily v. Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680 (ND Cal.1974), aff'd, 550 F.2d 464 (CA9 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 436 U.S. 547, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978), the plaintiffs obtained a declaratory judgment, then moved for a preliminary injunction. After the defendants promised not to violate the judgment the motion was denied. The District Court awarded attorney's fees for time spent pursuing this motion because the plaintiffs "substantially advanced their clients' interests" by obtaining "a significant concession from defendants as a result of their motion." 64 F.R.D., at 684.

In Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 E.P.D. ¶ 9444 (CD Cal.1974), the plaintiffs won an important judgment requiring the Los Angeles County Fire Department to undertake an affirmative action program for hiring minorities. In awarding attorney's fees the District Court stated:

"It also is not legally relevant that plaintiffs' counsel expended a certain limited amount of time pursuing certain issues of fact and law that ultimately did not become litigated issues in the case or upon which plaintiffs ultimately did not prevail. Since pl...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21130 cases
  • Robinson v. Ariyoshi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • January 18, 1989
    ...and insistently has taken into consideration the preceding guidelines. As The Court said in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), in discussing attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § "The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a re......
  • Howell v. Town of Ball
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • January 26, 2018
    ...in so doing, has vindicated Congress's statutory purposes. That "result is what matters," we explained in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983): A court should compensate the plaintiff for the time his attorney reasonably spent in achieving the favora......
  • State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lara
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 2021
    ...for work on unrelated claims, they generally are not reduced for alternative legal arguments. (See Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, 434-436, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 ( Hensley ).) We conclude section 1861.10(b) requires only that advocacy fees be "reasonable," within the usual......
  • Best v. California Apprenticeship Council
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1987
    ...can be part of the attorney's fees award under § 1988. Webb, supra, at 243, 105 S.Ct. at 1929; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)." (Id. at pp. 341-342, italics Thus, under the reasoning of North Carolina, Best is entitled to attorney's fees un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Employer Attorney's Fees Awards
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 2, 2011
    ...fee shifting provisions under Section 1988 and Title VII have involved a prevailing plaintiff. For example, in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the Supreme Court noted that a plaintiff may be considered a prevailing party for attorney's fees purposes under Section 1988 if he or sh......
185 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...21, 2009), 6th-09 Hensley v. Barnhart , 352 F.3d 353 (8th Cir. Dec. 9, 2003), 8th-09, 8th-03, §§ 1107.5, 1203.4 Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (1983), §§ 701.4, 702.4, 702.9, 702.10, 702.11, 1702.7 Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. Jan. 7, 2008), 8th-11, 8th-08 Her......
  • The Potential Civil Liability of Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 67-09, September 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...is not limited by the amount of the § 1988 award). [FN182]. City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). [FN183]. Rivera, 477 U.S. at 568-69 (the so-called Johnson factors, derived from the case of Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Inc., 488 ......
  • An Unqualified Defense of Qualified Immunity
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 21-1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...1, 11 (1985). 42. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). 43. Pub. L. No. 94-559, § 1, 90 Stat. 2641 (1976). 44. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 45. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980) (per curiam). 2023] AN UNQUALIFIED DEFENSE O......
  • Remedies available under the adea
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • April 28, 2022
    ...to exercise “billing judgment” in their request for fees. The courts follow this guidance from the Supreme Court [ Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted)]: Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good-faith e൵ort to exclude hours tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 provisions
  • DC Register Vol 70, No 4 January 27, 2023 Pages 000825 to 001248
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...OEA Matter No 1601-0087-15AF18 (July 27, 2018) citing to Copeland v Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980). See also Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and National Association of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir Id. Copeland supra. DISTRICT OF COLU......
  • DC Register Vol 70, No 29 July 21, 2023 Pages 009915 to 010339
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...OEA Matter No 1601-0087-15AF18 (July 27, 2018) citing to Copeland v Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980). See also Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and National Association of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir Id. Copeland supra. 39 Employee’s Fe......
  • DC Register Vol 70, No 17 April 28, 2023 Pages 006095 to 006311
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...of the litigation.11 Here, the undersigned is the equivalent of the trial court.12 Reasonableness of Attorney Fee In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that, the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee award is the degr......
  • DC Register Vol 69, No 43 October 28, 2022 Pages 013199 to 013444
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...2019) for a discussion on the various matrices. 22 Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980); See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 National Association of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 23 Copeland, supra. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RE......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT