Terry Petteway v. Mark Henry
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25053
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Galveston County (a Section 5 covered jurisdiction) adopted new election maps after the 2010 census and submitted them to DOJ for preclearance; maps stated they would be effective only after preclearance.
- Plaintiffs (seven elected officials and one citizen) sued, alleging constitutional and Voting Rights Act violations and sought injunctions to block the County from using unprecleared maps.
- A three-judge district court briefly entered a TRO, then vacated it, later enjoined the County from enforcing any unprecleared plans, and refused to adopt the Plaintiffs’ proposed maps; DOJ ultimately objected to the County’s plans.
- After negotiations, the County and DOJ presented precleared commissioner maps and agreed to use the 2001 benchmark for justice of the peace and constable races; the three-judge court dissolved.
- Plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e); the district court awarded fees (including for Plaintiffs’ lobbying of DOJ). The County appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed: it held Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees; because of that conclusion, the court did not reach the separate issue of fees for DOJ lobbying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" under § 1973l(e) | The injunctions (temporary and permanent) materially altered the legal relationship and prevented implementation of unprecleared maps, directly benefiting Plaintiffs | The injunction merely preserved the County’s prior commitment to await DOJ preclearance; relief was de minimis and did not materially change County behavior | Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties: injunction was not a material change and did not directly benefit Plaintiffs |
| Whether fees can include Plaintiffs’ lobbying of DOJ during preclearance | Plaintiffs contend their DOJ advocacy contributed to DOJ’s objection and thus is compensable work related to litigation | County argues such lobbying is not sufficiently related to the litigation to be fee‑recoverable | Court did not reach merits because Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties; remand directs judgment for County |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing‑party status requires judicially sanctioned relief that materially alters the legal relationship)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee applicant bears burden to establish entitlement)
- Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (1989) (prevailing party may succeed on any significant issue that achieves some benefit sought)
- Dearmore v. City of Garland, 519 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2008) (three‑part test for prevailing‑party status in § 1983/Voting Rights Act context)
- Jenevein v. Willing, 605 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2010) (technical or de minimis successes do not confer prevailing‑party status)
- Volk v. Gonzalez, 262 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for fee awards)
- El Paso Indep. School Dist. v. Richard R., 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (prevailing‑party legal question reviewed de novo)
- Craig v. Gregg County, 988 F.2d 18 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying prevailing‑party status where suit followed preclearance filing and relief was not the catalyst)