Rodolfo Sanchez v. Art Acevedo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23926
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- In Oct 2011 Sanchez and Sleeman participated in Occupy Austin at City Hall and were given verbal criminal-trespass notices (CTNs) banning them from City property.
- Two days later the City codified a CTN policy defining CTNs, permitting only post-deprivation administrative review (30-day window), and reserving authority to issue CTNs for City property including the plaza.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment facial and as-applied challenges; the district court held an expedited bench trial one month after filing.
- The district court later declared the CTN policy facially unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction forbidding the City from issuing CTNs under that policy; the City did not appeal the merits ruling.
- Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the district court found them prevailing parties but denied all fees, citing "special circumstances"—principally that (1) plaintiffs’ injuries were limited and (2) the City’s new plaza rules and the end of Occupy meant the CTN policy was no longer in effect.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding (1) plaintiffs were prevailing parties; (2) the district court abused its narrow discretion by treating limited success/injury and alleged policy inactivity as special circumstances justifying denial of fees; and (3) remanded to calculate a reasonable fee award (including fees for the appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were "prevailing parties" under § 1988 | Plaintiffs obtained declaratory relief and a permanent injunction altering the legal relationship—thus prevailing | City contested prevailing status (but did not appeal district court’s prevailing-party finding) | Plaintiffs are prevailing parties (Lefemine/Farrar principles) |
| Whether "special circumstances" make fee award unjust | No special circumstances; limited success or injury go to fee amount, not to denial of fees | City argued limited relief, limited injury, and lack of continuing policy enforcement justified denying fees | Court: district court erred; special-circumstances exception is narrow and limited success/injury do not justify wholesale denial |
| Whether the CTN policy was "no longer in effect" so injunction had no effect | Plaintiffs: injunction materially altered defendant behavior and vindicated rights; no record support that policy was repealed | City: new curfew/reservation rules and end of protests meant CTN policy inactive, so fees unjust | Court: no record evidence CTN policy was repealed; district court’s finding it was no longer in effect was clearly erroneous |
| Remedy and calculation of fees | Plaintiffs sought reasonable fees; degree of success may adjust amount | City argued fees were excessive or "shocking the conscience" and should be reduced or denied | Court: remand to district court to compute reasonable fee award (including appellate fees); degree of success considered in amount, not in bar to award |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (explains prevailing-party inquiry and that nominal damages may justify no fee in damages suits)
- Lefemine v. Wideman, 133 S. Ct. 9 (2012) (an injunction or declaratory judgment ordinarily makes plaintiff a prevailing party; remands for special-circumstances inquiry)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (degree of success informs reasonableness/amount of fee under § 1988)
- Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (1989) (prevailing-party inquiry focused on material alteration of legal relationship)
- Pruett v. Harris Cnty. Bail Bond Bd., 499 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007) (discretion to deny § 1988 fees is extremely narrow and special circumstances require an extremely strong showing)