Eileen McAfee v. Christine Boczar
738 F.3d 81
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- McAfee inspected a distressed dog in Powhatan County (Dec 26, 2010) and bought a doghouse for the dog; dog bite occurred when McAfee fed a treat, leading to medical care and reporting to animal control.
- Boczar, Powhatan County deputy sheriff and animal control officer, investigated the bite and sought the dog’s location; she arrested McAfee on a warrant for withholding information about a possibly rabid animal under Va. Code § 18.2-313.1 based on disputed statements.
- A magistrate court conducted a one-day trial (May 27, 2011) resulting in McAfee’s acquittal; district court later denied Boczar’s qualified-immunity defense and a jury trial proceeded in 2012.
- McAfee sued Boczar in the Eastern District of Virginia (Sept 28, 2011) asserting § 1983 Fourth Amendment violation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment.
- At trial (July 6, 2012) the jury found for McAfee on § 1983 but awarded only $2,943.60 for out-of-pocket expenses; other damages and punitive damages were denied.
- The district court awarded McAfee $322,340.50 in attorney’s fees under § 1988, which the Fourth Circuit vacated, remanding for a reduced award of $100,000 exclusive of costs; the court affirmed the underlying verdicts.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity on § 1983 claim | McAfee asserts Boczar violated Fourth Amendment; immunity not warranted | Boczar challenged immunity; trial should not have occurred | No qualified-immunity; judgment for McAfee stands on damages |
| Prevailing party under § 1988 | McAfee is prevailing party due to § 1983 verdict | Prevailing-party status contested by Boczar | McAfee prevailing under § 1988; merits fee review |
| Reasonableness of attorney’s fees under lodestar | Fees reasonable per lodestar and Johnson factors | Fees excessive given limited success | Fees initially reasonable but overstate success; vacated and remanded for reduction to $100,000 |
| Impact of success on fee adjustment | Deterrence/vindication justify high fee | Limited damages undermine fee amount | Court erred by overemphasizing deterrence; substantial reduction required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (establishes lodestar baseline and factor-based adjustments)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010) (limits to enhancements; some Johnson factors subsumed in lodestar)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (extreme disparity between damages sought and obtained affects fees)
- Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005) (disproportionate fee-to-damages ratio; informs success comparison)
- Rivera v. Providence Portland Med. Ctr., 477 U.S. 561 (1986) (fee appropriateness related to damages and civil-rights context)
- Miller v. Prince George's Cnty., 475 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (clarifies objective reasonableness and reasonableness of fees)