Estate of Joseph D. Farrar and Dale Lawson Farrar v. Clarence D. Cain, and William P. Hobby, Jr.
941 F.2d 1311
5th Cir.
1991
Check Treatment

*1 13H the district court and the Inasmuch as

Corps agree on the basic conclusion FONSI, presents no

Corps’ that the levee significant environmental im-

possibility of improp-

pact, issuance of the levee should no

er. Construction

longer delayed. be

III.

Conclusion foregoing

For the reasons the district enjoining

court’s order construction of the

Item 3A-2 levee and condemnation of asso-

ciated lands is VACATED. The mandate

shall issue forthwith. Joseph

ESTATE OF D. FARRAR

and Dale Lawson

Plaintiffs-Appellees, CAIN, al., Defendants, D.

Clarence et Jr., Hobby,

William P. Defendant-

Appellant.

No. 90-2830. Appeals,

United States Court of

Fifth Circuit.

Sept. Keller,

Mary Gen., F. Atty. First Asst. Gen., Guajardo, Atty. Javier P. Asst. Aus- tions, and the district court failed to make the address the issue of whether the district court erred in its assessment of Col. Skidmore’s testi- required statutory findings supplementing necessity levee, mony the EIS for the we will not as an admission. *2 Upon learn- closing of Artesia Hall. Gen., to the Mattox, Finis E. Atty. Tex.,

tin, Jim media, through the ing the indictment Cheavens, Baker & Cowan, D. Joseph with State discussing the situation Keel, and Tex., Bak- Houston, Patrick O. Botts, Whitmire, Hobby is- Representative John Tex., Austin, defendant- Botts, for &er criticizing the press Texas sued a release appellant. its Department Welfare and li- of Public Conner, Cantey Mack- & Mackey, E. Ken censing He also contacted procedures. Tex., Austin, Carr, for Far- Waggonner ey, Vowell, Raymond the director of rar. TDPW, investigate urged and him to Arte- later, Hobby days Hall. met sia Several accompa- Briscoe and Dolph Governor with inspection of Artesia Briscoe on an nied REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM temporary Before Finally, he attended Hall. DUHÉ, Judges. Briscoe, Circuit but did not hearing injunction with reporters testify, spoke to personally HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit E. PATRICK hearing. Judge: eventually murder indictment was brought a 1983 Joseph and Dale Farrar Joseph later filed this Farrar dismissed. Governor Wil- then-Lieutenant against suit Cain, Judge County Hobby, against others, alleging that Hobby, among liam Hartel, director and two Attorney conspiracy in a to participated Hobby had Department Texas employees of the rights. civil of their Farrars deprive the Welfare, seeking injunctive relief Public money— sought only Farrars At trial the monetary damages under U.S.C. damages. jury found $17 amendments and 1985. Later §§ conspiracy, any but innocent of Hobby son, Dale, Farrar’s as complaint added he had violated the found that nonetheless injunctive for dropped the claim plaintiff, a jury found no rights. Yet civil Farrars’ requested dam- increased the remand, court the trial On damages. alleged The Farrars ages to million. in nominal dam- the Farrars $1 awarded their civil the defendants and, to be finding the Farrars ages things, by, among other malicious awarded parties" school, closing prosecution aimed $300,000 attorney’s fees over them right depriving them of thereby persuaded expenses. We are profession. practice their livelihood parties under Farrars were conspiracy to violate They alleged also a the fee award. reverse 1988. We rights. granted the defen- court I summary judgment on dants’ motion oper- at one time Dale Farrar Joseph and 23,1981, panel a of this court February Hall, facility a for troubled Artesia ated Joseph Farrar died on order. vacated the County, Texas. After teens, Liberty 20, 1983, February Artesia Hall student death of an co-administrators motion to substitute jury a mur- County grand returned Liberty estate, Dale Pat of his Smith against Joseph Farrar. The der indictment 15, 1983, the case plaintiffs. August charged willfully Farrar with indictment special interroga- jury on ten tried to medical proper treat- failing to administer none of the tories. failing timely the student and ment to liability, immune from defendants Shortly hospitalization. her provide for Hobby except that all of defendants Texas, thereafter, acting state of against engaged conspiracy in a General, Attorney obtained through its proxi- tiffs, was not the conspiracy closing Artesia Hall. temporary injury, any mate cause color or acts under “committed an act Gover- Hobby, Lieutenant William then Joseph Plaintiff deprived state law nor, leading in the events played some role right,” Hobby’s title, of a civil and that and 1986 of this Farrar title IX of 92-318, proximate not the cause of acts were Public Law or title VI of the Civil Rights court, injury. The district court entered Act of in its dis- findings cretion, may ment in accordance with the allow the prevailing party, *3 10, States, on November other than the United a reason- attorney’s part able fee as of the costs.3 8, appeal, opinion April in an dated cases, several recent 1985, Court part this in re- court affirmed has articulated standards for determining part. in versed We affirmed the district whether party prevailed a purposes court’s failure to award nominal recovering attorney’s fees under against engaged in con- defendants 1988.4 In rejecting because, the “cen- spiracy liability § under establish test, tral issue” which this circuit 1983, ap- necessary prove “it remains an § plied,5 the Court stated that deprivation right; actual of a constitutional “[i]f 1 tiff has ‘any significant succeeded on issue conspiracy deprive is insufficient.” litigation in which some However, found that Hob- achieve[d] parties sought benefit the bringing in violation, suit’ civil-rights committed a has crossed the threshold to a entry remanded for the of nominal dam- fee award of some kind.”6 The ages against Court him.2 that, say went on to subsequently appli- The Farrars filed an minimum, at a to be prevail- considered a cation for fees 42 U.S.C. ing party meaning within the 1988 § 1988, $248,362.50 seeking to recover in § point must be able to to a $27,976.74 in expenses. fees and After a dispute changes resolution of the which hearing, the district court an order entered between itself and Smith, awarding “Pat Dale Beyond the defendant. this absolute $280,000.00 fees, Dale Lawson Farrar” in limitation, victory may a technical be so $27,932.00 expenses, in prejudgment insignificant, may be so near the interest, against Hobby only. The court situations addressed in Hewitt and award, denied reconsideration of the fee Rhodes, as to support be insufficient to appeals now to this court. We prevailing party status.7 hold that the Farrars are not also noted that it had first laid parties” under 1988 and re- § prevailing-party requirement this “floor” verse. Hewitt. II Hewitt was an inmate’s 1983 suit provides, part, Section 1988 in relevant against prison Following prison officials. as follows: Pennsylvania, “charged” riot in in- officials proceeding action or allegedly striking to enforce a mate Aaron Helms for 1981, 1982, 1983,

provision of Relying solely hearsay sections an officer. Cain, 1148, 1, (5th (1989); Stewart, 1. Farrar v. 756 F.2d Cir. 1151 866 Rhodes v. 488 U.S. 109 1985) McInnis, 202, Helms, (quoting (1988); Villanueva v. S.Ct. 102 L.Ed.2d 1 Hewitt v. 414, (5th 1984)). 2672, (1987); Hensley 418 107 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 654 96 Eckerhart, 424, 1933, 461 103 S.Ct. 76 U.S. (1983). (citing Carey Piphus, Id. at 1152 L.Ed.2d 40 435 U.S. 247, 266-67, 1042, 1053-54, S.Ct. 98 55 L.Ed.2d (1978); Houston, Indep. 252 and Webster v. 689 5. Texas Assoc. v. State Teachers Garland of vacated and re- 1220, (5th Cir.1982), Dist., (5th Cir.1988), rev’d, F.2d 1230 School 837 1486, grounds, manded on other L.Ed.2d 489 U.S. 866 Cir.), part part, and rev'd in 739 F.2d 993 aff'd (5th Cir.1984) (en rehearing granted)). banc (quoting S.Ct. at 1493 Nadeau v. (West 1981) (1st Cir.1978)). (emphasis Helgemoe, U.S.C.A. add- 278-79 ed). Eckerhart, (1983), Hensley 103 S.Ct. at 1939 applied the Court the same standard. Indep. 4. Texas State Teachers v. Garland School Dist., (citations omitted). L.Ed.2d 7.Id. was he received only “relief” officer, prison charging testimony of knowing that a fed- satisfaction moral guilty. Helms Helms committee rights had his concluded eral court process. due claiming denial sued satisfac- moral The same been violated. the constitutional contested prison officials any favor- results presumably tion qualified invoked claim otherwise an of law able statement summary judgment opinion.9 unfavorable decide did not defendants Cir- However, Third immunity principles issue. The Court due denied Helms cuit, finding two In Rhodes Rhodes v. Stewart.10 trial instructed reversed process, prison filed in an inmates Ohio *4 for judgment summary enter refusing per to that, by court to complaint, alleging establish could officials magazine, the Helms unless to a the subscribe inmates to mit dis- the remand immunity defense. inmates’ the an officials had prison for judgment summary rights. trict court Amendment and Fourteenth First qualified of the basis on in fa eventually decided the defendants court district The offi the ruling that plaintiffs, of the vor procedures proper the applied not had cials Helms was held Court district time the byBut the standards. and party: prevailing not decision, inmates of one the its issued court requires language ordinary for Respect released. had been other died re- some at least receive that a attorney’s fees awarded district he before his claim of merits the on lief appeals con of The court plaintiffs. the to ob- Helms prevail_ to said can be aas decision court’s the strued the defen- of Because no relief. tained upheld therefore declaratory judgment immunity he received official dants’ fee award. the declar- or No damages award. fa- in his fee entered the was reversed judgment Supreme Court atory that, because ground vor.8 on the defen from no relief had won plaintiffs following distinc- made the then The Court controlling: dants, was rights” of vindication “a tion between differ- is no judgment declaratory A the merits:” on “some relief It will judgment. any other ent from decree judicial litigation, In all of relief, purposes § constitute the end At means. but the end is not of if, the behavior it affects if, but judgment, lies not rainbow of the plaintiff. towards defendant action) by (or of cessation action some A result. such was no there this case pro- judgment the defendant maga- on policies prison of duces&emdash;the modification or damages, of payment any way not subscriptions could zine the termi- or performance, specific some of plaintiff, either have is benefited Redress conduct. of some nation released other dead was whom court, through the sought defendant_ its or- entered the District before ju- of the value The real der_ moot before was The case it a makes pronouncement&emdash;what dicial judgment issued, ment “case or controver- of a resolution proper relief whatso- plaintiffs opinion&emdash;isafforded advisory an than rather sy” party of absence ever. dispute which of some settling in the requirement threshold meet the cannot behavior defendant of affects in conse- prevail, he of As a conse- § plaintiff_ towards an award to entitled is not lawsuit, quence Helms present quence attorney’s fees.11 defendants. nothing from obtained L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. at 2675. original). (emphasis in 107 S.Ct. Id. at 203-04. Thus, Hewitt, Rhodes, had been violated. But since he was un- qualify prevailing party, as a get able form of relief from the must show he won at least some relief owing to gov- the defendants’ defendants — defendant, from the the outcome of immunity ernmental plaintiff was —the changed be- deemed not to prevailing be a party. The parties, plaintiffs tween and that the principle same in Rhodes. success was not a de or minimis technical There that, the Court said although the victory. plaintiffs declaratory won a judgment stat- ing that the defendants had violated consti- Ill tutional rights, plaintiffs were persuaded We are that the Far- vailing parties under they parties rars received no benefit judgment. from the purposes therefore re “In the absence of party relief a cannot verse. Farrars sued for meet the requirement threshold money damages; jury gave them noth prevail, that he consequence and in is not ing. money damages. No No declaratory entitled an award fees.”16 injunctive No relief. relief. Nothing. Likewise, the Farrars failed to meet that *5 “That is not the stuff legal of which victo threshold, they because too failed to ries course, are made.”12 Of as the dis relief. win emphasized, trict court the Farrars did suc in securing jury-finding ceed that We do not diminish the significance of a rights violated their civil and a nominal finding of a constitutional violation. However, of one dollar. finding award this Carey Piphus,17 stressing impor “the did in any meaningful “change sense organized tance to society procedural legal relationship” the between the Farrars process observed,” due be Supreme Hobby.13 Nor was result a success held that the process denial of due is for the Farrars on “significant issue that actionable for damages nominal even with some of the benefit achieve[d] [Farrars] proof injury.18 Moreover, out of actual as sought in bringing suit.”14 When the sole the district noted, we have held that sought relief money damages, is we fail to violation of constitutional is nev “[a] party “prevails” how a by winning see one minimis,” de er the sense that a consti dollar out of the requested. tutional violation is “so small or never tri Furthermore, even if the Farrars could be fling law takes no account of it.” victors, seen given as singular objec their holding That is today. no less valid Rath money damages, surely tive theirs was er, we hold that object when the sole of a victory “a technical insignificant, so money suit is to damages, recover the re so and ... near the situations addressed in covery of one victory dollar is as to be insufficient to struggle 1988. This was no over consti support prevailing status.” party principles. tutional damage It was a suit Hewitt the judicial secured a surely plaintiffs so since sought noth determination that his ing constitutional Garland,20 more. We must—under 12. 107 S.Ct. at 2676. whether a wins who nominal damages may recover fees. 13. 109 S.Ct. at 1493. 14. Id. 19. Lewis v. Woods, 1988) (citing Carey). 15. Id. 16. ("Where 109 S.Ct. at 204. 109 S.Ct. at 1493 legal tiff’s success on a claim can be character- 247, 266-67, 1042, 1053-54, minimis, purely ized as technical deor a district 55 L.Ed.2d 252 justified concluding court would be that even 'generous adopt today we formulation’ Although spoke the Court to the issue indi- satisfied.”) (citation omitted). rectly, been Carey, 435 U.S. at n. 98 S.Ct. at question 1049 n. it did not answer Ruggieros were indeed held that the whether inquire into

Hewitt, and Rhodes— by parties: vailing victory, as measured plaintiffs obtained, merely a de actually relief bar, where ease at as the In a such case success.21 or technical minimis core out of a common claims arise opinions today conflicts with holding theories, Our legal involve related facts and Ninth, Seventh, Second, Eighth, of the examining by may be assessed success The most Tenth, Circuits.22 and Eleventh to a resolu- “point plaintiffs can whether whose opinions, of those recent changes the dispute which tion of obviously holding are most reasoning and relationship between legal [them] Krzem own, Ruggiero v. is to our contrary inski,23 defendants].” “gener Court’s Based conducted a officers police Ruggiero, formulation,” it clear think ous and seized Ruggieros’ home search parties” Ruggieros were brought Ruggieros items. The certain required section officers, alleging, against the fourth appellants’ determination that the search things, among other rights were vio amendment fourteenth jury illegal. found the seizure by the conducted by the search lated had not consented Ruggieros Simply significant. assuredly is Officers found, however, that It also the search. Ruggie- compensatory Ruggieros suffered in all claims not establish ros did illegal search. a result damages as sig nothing to lessen respects does nom- directed judge The trial Ruggie- nificance, importance, of or of one dollar. amount inal *6 compensato Although success. ros’ Ruggie- judge also determined awarded, damages were ry parties prevailing ros were the relation “changes determination them at- and, accordingly, awarded 1988 Ruggieros and ship” between torney’s fees. violation in that a of Officers Circuit, citing the Second appeal the been found.24 as well Carey in opinion Court’s Supreme when a holds that Circuit Thus the Second I, ap- in opinion court’s Farrar as this viola- constitutional that a jury determines nominal-damage award. proved plaintiff when the has occurred—even tion attorney’s-fee affirmed also relief25 only compensatory seeks rejected Officer Krzeminski’s le- damages whatsoever—the jury finds pre- not Ruggieros were argument plaintiff relationship between gal meaning of parties within vailing plaintiff changed and the has defendant limited success at of because 1988 prevailed. has the court Quoting from trial. Stores, (en banc); 1987) v. Garner Wal-Mart Cir. court cites argument, the district a related In Cir.1987). (11th But Inc., 807 F.2d 1539 supposedly opinions that three Fifth Circuit Co., F.2d 651 Electric Spencer v. General 894 see the award of proposition stand for the Cir.1990) (dicta). lightly create (4th We do not support §a 1988 damages alone nominal will to the opinion was circulated This a conflict. City attorney’s-fee v. Basiardanes award. policy. by required the court's Cir.1982); entire court Galveston, (5th Famili 682 1203 F.2d requested en banc of the court Cir.1980); No member (5th Briscoe, v. F.2d 391 as Unidas 619 consideration. (5th Moody, F.2d v. McNamara however, cases, 1979). decided three All (2d Cir.1991). by governed 23. 928 were not before Supreme Court's decisions in added). (emphasis Garland. Rug- (2d indicate that Krzeminski, opinion does Ruggiero monetary sought anything than gieros other Cir.1991), City Hillsborough, 862 Scofield event, opinion makes any damages. Turner, (9th Cir.1988); F.2d Coleman from Ruggieros no relief won (8th Cir.1988); clear the Nephew v. Aurora, defendants. n. 2 essentially claratory judgment reached circuits have is no different Other any judgment. same conclusion as the Second Circuit: other It will constitute re- finding and an award lief, 1988, if, that a of a violation purpose for the only damages unaccompanied by if, of nominal it affects the behavior of the defendant — prevail- relief—is sufficient to create other plaintiff.”29 towards the cases, ing-party of those status.26 Some That a court or finds a violation however, Rhodes or were decided before not, itself, by does create prevailing-party (decided Nephew E.g., even before Hewitt. Rather, status. to be a party, a Rhodes); (decided before before Gamer plaintiff must secure a decision that Hewitt). The cases decided Hewitt changes between the refer and Rhodes do not discuss or even to parties in way alters defendant’s Instead, rely courts on either case. plaintiff behavior toward the and that se- pre-Hewitt pre-Rhodes circuit-court de- sought by cures some of the relief cisions.27 Even does discuss Ruggiero plaintiff bringing the suit. The Farrars Rhodes; it relies or cite Hewitt or instead victory. have won no such Supreme opinions Court’s Gar- We reverse the district court’s attor- Hensley. land ney’s-fee parties award and hold that the event, applying principles set shall bear their costs. own in Hewitt and forth REVERSED. disagree position compelled are with the circuits, especially taken these as that REAVLEY, Judge, dissenting: Circuit position Ruggiero. is stated appeals the court of determined that the difficulty While I have understanding the plaintiffs constitutional had been vi- justification finding that Governor olated. But on remand the trial court de- Hobby plaintiffs’ rights, pro- nied all as the defendants were issue has been majority foreclosed. The tected of official because holds that where obtains held that the dep- nominal for his constitutional prevailing party, not the rivation, he cannot be considered the “[t]he only ‘relief’ he received was the moral sat- vailing party. *7 disagree I and do not read knowing isfaction of that a federal court Hewitt, go Rhodes and Garland to so far. concluded that his had been violated. plaintiffs prevailed in their claim al- presumably The same moral satisfaction though the amount of their benefit was results from favorable statement of only regard nominal. I do not that result opin- in an would, however, law otherwise unfavorable insignificant. I order ion.”28 After Hewitt but before reconsideration of the amount of the fee might distinguished have between a under these circumstances. mere “favorable statement of law” and an judgment declaring

actual viola- Rhodes, however,

tion. ex- principle

tended the Hewitt to situations in

which has secured such a

ment but has failed to win relief from the

defendant. The Court stated that de- “[a] 759, Coleman, Hillsborough, City (citing 862 F.2d F.2d at Smith 26.Scofield DeBartoli, (7th Cir.1985), Turner, (9th Cir.1988); 769 F.2d 451 cert. de Coleman v. 838 F.2d 1067, 1380, nied, (8th Cir.1988); 89 L.Ed.2d Nephew (1986)); Scofield, (citing, 862 F.2d at 766 Aurora, (10th Cir.1987) 1553 n. 2 alia, Brown, Bilbrey v. inter (en banc); Stores, Inc., Garner v. Wal-Mart (9th Cir.1988)). (11th Cir.1987). Spenc But see Co., er v. General Electric 107 S.Ct. at 2676. Cir.1990) (dicta). 109 S.Ct. at 203.