508 F. App'x 522
6th Cir.2012Background
- McQueary challenged a Kentucky funeral-protest statute as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- He sought to invalidate the statute on its face, not just as applied on a specific day.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement based on likelihood of success on the merits.
- The legislature repealed the statute, and the district court dismissed the case as moot and denied fees.
- We previously remanded for a fees assessment; the district court again denied fees, and McQueary appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McQueary is entitled to attorney’s fees under § 1988 after a preliminary injunction | McQueary prevailed on the injunction and may be a prevailing party | Relying on Buckhannon, no fee without a catalyst or final relief | Fees denied; no clear error in denial |
| Whether the legislature’s repeal of the statute supplies a catalyst for fees | Voluntary repeal can support fees in some contexts | Voluntary conduct alone does not justify fee awards | No catalyst finding to support fees |
| Whether the case was moot for purposes of fee entitlement | Relief sought was permanent injunction against enforcement | Relief obtained did not reflect permanent resolution | Mootness not dispositive; district court properly concluded no fee entitlement under context |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (catalyst theory governs fee awards; voluntary cessation alone not enough)
- Young v. City of Chicago, 202 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (preliminary relief does not automatically yield fees)
- DiLaura v. Twp. of Ann Arbor, 471 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2006) (deference to district court; standard of review for fee determinations)