David Morris v. Robert Kesselring, 514 F. App'x 233

Morrises filed a §1983 civil rights action against multiple officers, municipalities, and private individuals on Sept. 8, 2009; amended the complaint February 2010.
Magistrate Judge granted a Rule 12(e) deficienies order, requiring a more definite statement and additional factual detail; warned of possible dismissal.
Morrises objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order; Judge Conner denied the objection and ordered a second amended complaint.
Morrises filed a second amended complaint that remained essentially identical; several defendants moved to dismiss, including a Rule 41(b) dismissal motion.
District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo granted dismissal under Rule 41(b) on May 9, 2011; Morrises denied reconsideration.
Defendants Barney and Strausbaugh moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988; the District Court awarded $7,600.50 in fees to them; Morrises appeal the fee award and denial of reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly dismissed under Rule 41(b).	Morrises argue error in dismissal; (no detailed argument provided in opinion).	Defendants contend dismissal was warranted under Poulis factors for failure to comply with orders.	Yes; dismissal affirmed under Rule 41(b) after Poulis balance.
Whether Morrises waived appellate challenge to dismissal by not addressing Rule 41(b)/Poulis.	Morrises did not challenge Rule 41(b)/Poulis on appeal.	Defendants relied on district court rulings; no challenge raised on appeal.	Waived; appellate review limited to dismissal assessment—affirmed.
Whether the fee award to Strausbaugh and Barney was proper.	Morrises contend claims against them were non-frivolous and sought an evidentiary hearing.	Court held defendants prevailed and claims were frivolous; no abuse of discretion.	Fees to Strausbaugh and Barney affirmed.
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required for the attorney’s fees award.	Due process requires a hearing in some fee situations.	Hearing not required given notice, record, and arguments; no due process violation.	No evidentiary hearing required; no abuse of discretion.

Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six-factor test for dismissal under Rule 41(b))
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court 1978) (standard for fee-shifting against frivolous suits)
Barnes Found. v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 242 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2001) (prevailing defendant may recover attorney’s fees for frivolous action)
Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 1999) (due process considerations in fee awards; hearing not always required)
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court 1980) (due process and hearing considerations in fee awards)
Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of Rule 41(b) dismissal")
Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion review of dismissal and fee rulings)
United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) (waiver and appellate issue analysis in criminal/§1983 context)
In re Surrick, 338 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2003) (waiver and standard of appellate review)