Maldonado v. Nebraska Dept. of Public Welfare

Citation223 Neb. 485,391 N.W.2d 105
Decision Date01 August 1986
Docket NumberNos. 84-843,84-869,s. 84-843
PartiesDebbie MALDONADO et al., Appellees, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE et al., Appellants. Lois BURNSIDE, Appellee, v. Gina C. DUNNING, Director, Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Civil Rights: Attorney Fees. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982) was intended as an incentive for private enforcement of civil rights, and serves as a general avenue for award of attorney fees following action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).

2. Appeal and Error. Regarding questions of law, this court has an obligation to reach its conclusion independent from the conclusion reached by a trial court.

3. Civil Rights: Attorney Fees. A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) may be brought in a state court in the procedural context of a state court's reviewing the actions of a state administrative agency, and attorney fees may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982) in such a case.

4. Civil Rights: Attorney Fees. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982) does not provide a basis for the award of attorney fees in appearances before an administrative agency.

Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Royce N. Harper, Lincoln, for appellants.

Ronald L. Sanchez, North Platte, for appellees.

KRIVOSHA, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ.

GRANT, Justice.

Defendants-appellants, Nebraska Department of Public Welfare et al. and Gina C. Dunning (director of the Nebraska Department of Social Services) et al., appeal from separate orders entered in the district courts for Lincoln and Dawson Counties, Nebraska. The orders appealed from awarded attorney fees to the plaintiffs-appellees, Debbie Maldonado et al. and Lois Burnside. The only issue in each appeal concerns the appropriateness of the district court's award of attorney fees. The cases were consolidated for briefing and oral argument in this court.

Both appeals involve actions brought in the respective district courts by appellees, seeking review of adverse agency decisions, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 84-917 through 84-919 (Reissue 1981). In each case the plaintiffs had lost claims for benefits before the administrative agency and had appealed to the district court. Plaintiffs prevailed in the district court and thereafter filed a motion requesting that attorney fees be awarded. Plaintiffs asserted that the district court had jurisdiction of their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) and, therefore, plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982). We first note that the Nebraska agency named in each petition is the same. Effective August 26, 1983, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 68-722 (Cum.Supp.1984), the name "Department of Public Welfare" was changed to "Department of Social Services." The administrative agency will be referred to as the department in each case.

Defendants contend that § 1988 is only applicable in actions based on § 1983; that Nebraska's administrative proceedings are not actions based upon § 1983; and that, therefore, attorney fees cannot be granted pursuant to § 1988. Defendants also contend that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes suits against the state pursuant to § 1983 in its own courts in the absence of any specific state legislation waiving the state's immunity.

The district court granted plaintiffs' motions requesting attorney fees, citing § 1988 as providing the court with authorization to award fees. Defendants' motions for a new trial were overruled. The defendants have since timely appealed to this court. For the reasons stated below we affirm.

The facts in each case are slightly different. In case No. 84-843 Maldonado filed a petition in the district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, on November 22, 1982, against the department and state and county officials in their official capacities as administrators of the aid to dependent children program (hereafter ADC). The petition sought review of the department's administrative action. Maldonado alleged that the state agency and officials counted income as twice being available to her, thereby reducing her ADC payment and thus depriving her and her children of the proper amount of ADC. The defendants filed a general denial. Before filing her petition, Maldonado had exhausted her administrative appeals pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 68-1016 (Reissue 1981). The record before the district court consists entirely of Maldonado's previous administrative hearing.

On July 24, 1984, the district court entered its order finding that the defendants had incorrectly computed Maldonado's September 1982 ADC grant, and ordered the defendants to recompute the ADC benefits due Maldonado. On July 27, 1984, Maldonado filed a motion requesting attorney fees be granted. On August 16, 1984, the district court entered its order awarding attorney fees of $475 to Maldonado. The court found that even though Maldonado's petition did not specifically state that her action was brought under § 1983, "the allegations of the petition relate to deprivation of Constitutional rights which would permit attorneys fees pursuant to Section 1988 USC." Defendants-appellants do not challenge, in this appeal, the correctness of the district court's action in reversing the agency's determination against Maldonado, but appeal only from the award of attorney fees.

In case No. 84-869, Burnside filed a petition on June 15, 1984, in the district court for Dawson County, Nebraska, against the Nebraska Department of Social Services and Gina C. Dunning in her official capacity as administrator of the aid to the aged, blind, and disabled (hereafter AABD) and medicaid programs. Burnside alleged in her petition that the defendants had improperly terminated her AABD grant and medicaid assistance. The defendants filed a general denial. Before filing her petition Burnside had exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to § 68-1016.

A hearing was held in district court on August 24, 1984. In addition to arguing the merits of her case at that hearing, Burnside also filed a motion requesting payment of attorney fees. On September 11, 1984, the district court entered its judgment in favor of Burnside and against the defendants. The court found that the defendants had violated Burnside's due process rights to a fair hearing as established under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. In so doing, the defendants acted under color of Nebraska law and regulations. The court awarded attorney fees of $865 along with nominal damages and court costs. Again, defendants-appellants do not appeal from the district court's determination on the merits of the case, but only from the award of attorney fees.

Section 1983 provides in part as follows:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

If a person is successful in pursuing a § 1983 claim, § 1988 allows that person to recover attorney fees. Section 1988 provides in pertinent part: "In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983 ... 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."

Section 1988 was intended as an incentive for private enforcement of civil rights and serves as a general avenue for award of attorney fees following action under § 1983. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980).

The defendants have assigned three errors. All of these errors concern questions of law. Regarding questions of law, this court has an obligation to reach its conclusion independent from the conclusion reached by a trial court. Boisen v. Petersen Flying Serv., 222 Neb. 239, 383 N.W.2d 29 (1986).

In their first and third assignments of error, the defendants contend that "[a]n appeal from a finding and order of a director of a state agency pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-917 (Reissue 1981) is not an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983," and that "[t]he district court erred in awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988." Since these two assignments are interrelated, they will be considered together.

The defendants contend that "the district court erred in not finding the Maldonado petition to be procedurally deficient in that § 1983 was never cited as a jurisdictional basis." Brief for Appellants at 6. The defendants contend that since no notice of a § 1983 claim was given either in the plaintiff's petition or in open court, the defendants were denied the opportunity to contest the appropriateness of utilizing a § 1983 claim in the context of the district court's reviewing a state agency administrative decision. In support of their position defendants cite Ingram v. Moody, 382 So.2d 522 (Ala.1980). In Ingram the Alabama Supreme Court held that when the petition fails to allege an action under § 1983 and the record before the court did not support the conclusion that the case was tried on § 1983 considerations, there could be no recovery under § 1983.

A review of Maldonado's petition shows that § 1983 was not cited in any manner. We hold, however, that the petition sufficiently states facts which allege a claim under § 1983. In Nebraska's code system of pleading, the facts well pled, and not the theory of recovery, state the cause of action. Moore v. Puget Sound Plywood, 214 Neb. 14, 332 N.W.2d 212 (1983); Newman Grove Creamery Co. v. Deaver, 208 Neb. 178, 302 N.W.2d 697 (1981). Other states have also held that specific citation of § 1983 is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Maisonet v. New Jersey Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Family Development
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1995
    ... ... 10:87-1.2(a). "In New Jersey, the county welfare agencies ... are responsible for certifying eligible households," ibid., ... at 234-35, 643 A.2d 1038. Thus, the value of housing, whether public or employer provided, should be afforded identical treatment. Id. at 234, ... to trial court from the State Department of Social Services); Maldonado v. Nebraska Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 223 Neb. 485, 391 N.W.2d 105 (1986) ... ...
  • Webb v. Neb. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 7, 2018
    ...review under the APA and a § 1983 claim in the same proceeding. The court found that it did based on our decision in Maldonado v. Nebraska Dept. of Pub. Welfare ,2 which cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Maine v. Thiboutot3 for the proposition that "a claim under § 1983 may be brou......
  • State v. Nowicki
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1991
    ...474 N.W.2d 478 ... 239 Neb. 130 ... STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, ... Michael S. NOWICKI, Appellant ... No ... , that an indigency hearing was held, or that a public defender was appointed ...         The court did ... ...
  • Bauers v. City of Lincoln
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • April 15, 1994
    ...pursuant to § 15-840. See, Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980); Maldonado v. Nebraska Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 223 Neb. 485, 490, 391 N.W.2d 105, 109 (1986) (discussing Thiboutot and stating that "a claim under § 1983 may be brought in a state court in the pr......
  • 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