In Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources,
1. Background. We summarize the judge’s findings of fact, and describe the lengthy procedural history of this case. See Palmetto Props., Inc. v. County of DuPage,
The plaintiff is a sixty-six year old severely mentally retarded man with no family. He suffers from Fahr’s Disease, a degenerative neurological disorder that causes him to have difficulty walking and maintaining his balance. He has been in the care of the Commonwealth since early childhood. In 1995, while in the department’s custody,
In November, 1995, while he was still a patient at MGH, the
A request for a preliminary injunction, filed when the action was commenced, was denied in March, 1996, after the department agreed to amend the plaintiff’s ISP.
At the conclusion of the trial but before the judge’s ruling on the department’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the plaintiff renewed his request for injunctive relief. See note 8, supra. He again sought an order that the department amend the plaintiff’s ISP
The focal point of our inquiry is the March 29, 2000, hearing for purposes of both our Buckhannon analysis and the contempt
As noted earlier, in December, 1999, following the trial, the plaintiff renewed his request for injunctive relief that the department complete a new ISP to require “in particular” some form of one-to-one care and supervision to assure the plaintiff’s safety and allow him to Uve “in the most normal, least restrictive manner possible.”
We turn now to the hearing on March 29. By that time the
“I am going to ask that [the department] amend this ISP to include . . . that, at the present time, [the plaintiff] has a private room, that he will have his private room, at [the department’s] expense, until an appropriate roommate is determined.....[18 ] And I am ¿so asking that [the department] amend the [ISP] ... to just add a sentence. . . that [the plaintiff] will have approximately twenty-five hours a week of one-to-one [care] . . . .”
When the department objected on the grounds that the judge had no authority to determine the content of an ISP, citing Matter of McKnight,
As to injunctive relief, because the department had agreed to provide one-to-one care and a private room by April 30, 2000, the judge inquired of plaintiff’s counsel that “with the current ISP, you really don’t need me to do anything.” He responded that “as the result of litigation” counsel had “gotten for [the plaintiff] what we want.” He did request that the judge make findings of fact that the plaintiff is a member of the Ricci class, see note 11, supra, and that the department “as a matter of law, [was] required to provide [the plaintiff] services in accordance with the ISP and in accordance with the i?zccz'-related [regulations].” The judge did not issue a written order following the March 29 hearing.
By April 30, 2000, the one-to-one services for the plaintiff had not been provided, nor apparently had he been moved to a private room in the nursing home. See note 19, infra. On May 31, 2000, the plaintiff filed a complaint for contempt, claiming that the department had failed to comply with the judge’s March 29 order. The docket does not reflect any opposition from the department and we have been provided with none. On June 15, 2000, the judge held a hearing on the complaint for contempt, by which time the department had at last amended the plaintiff’s
At the June hearing, the judge discussed with the parties a date for scheduling a trial on the plaintiff’s complaint for contempt. She requested that plaintiff’s counsel inform her whether the trial would consist solely of the claim for damages, in light of the fact that the department was, in the words of the plaintiff’s counsel, “[c]lose to being” in compliance with the judge’s March 29 order, and likely would be fully in compliance by the time of trial.
On September 6 and 8, 2000, the judge held hearings limited to the issue of contempt damages.
On December 1, 2000, the judge entered a written order on the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and his complaint for contempt. She dismissed the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief as moot. She awarded the plaintiff $215,965.80 in attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
As to the request for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
On May 29, 2001, the Supreme Court decided Buckhannon. On December 31, 2001, the department moved for reconsideration of the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, relying on the holding in that case. After initially declining to rule on the motion because the parties had filed notices of appeal,
2. Attorney’s fees. We consider first the plaintiff’s appeal from the judge’s order vacating the award of attorney’s fees and costs. In Buckhannon, the United States Supreme Court held that for a party to be considered a “prevailing party” under Federal fee-shifting statutes there must be a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties,” id. at 604, quoting Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist.,
The plaintiff now insists that, even under Buckhannon, he is a “prevailing party.” He focuses on the “judicial imprimatur” aspect of the Buckhannon ruling and points to (1) specific statements made by the judge during the February 10 and 17 and March 29, 2000, hearings on his posttrial motion for injunctive relief, and (2) the judge’s finding that he is a class member under Ricci. See note 11, supra
We review the judge’s decision that the plaintiff is not a “prevailing party” de nova. See Smith v. Fitchburg Pub. Sch.,
We consider first the “judicial imprimatur” requirement of Buckhannon. The Supreme Court stated that a “defendant’s voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur.” Buckhannon, supra at 605. The Court then noted that it had “only awarded attorney’s fees where the plaintiff has received a judgment on the merits . . . or obtained a court-ordered consent decree.” Id., and cases cited. It further noted that attorney’s fees had previously not been awarded by the Court where the plaintiff had “secured the reversal of a directed verdict ... or acquired a judicial pronouncement that the defendant has violated the Constitution unaccompanied by ‘judicial relief’ ” (citations omitted). Id. at 605-606. In the wake of Buckhannon, there has been some disagreement among Circuit Courts of the United States Court of Appeals whether a judgment on the merits and a court-ordered consent decree are the only forms of relief that meet the “judicial imprimatur” requirement of Buckhannon, or whether these are merely examples of the types of relief that can confer prevailing party status. See, e.g., Smith v. Fitchburg Pub. Schs., supra at 23 (noting disagreement between Eighth Circuit’s narrow reading and more expansive reading of Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits). Whatever the ultimate resolution of that question, no court has concluded that oral statements by a judge, sometimes couched in hortatory rather than directive terms, and not reduced to writing, are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a “judicial imprimatur.”
Buckhannon does not preclude an award of attorney’s fees on the basis of settlement agreements that are incorporated into a consent decree. See, e.g., Carbonell v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.,
There was no consent decree here. The judge resolved a dispute between the plaintiff and the department by cajoling (and sometimes ordering) the department to reach agreement with the plaintiff about the terms of the plaintiff’s ISP and the services the plaintiff should and would receive. It is clear from our careful review of the February 10 and 17 hearing transcripts that the judge ordered the department to produce a new ISP for the plaintiff, but that there was no order from the judge with respect to the specific content of the ISP.
This litigation was the catalyst for the department amending the plaintiff’s ISP in the wake of the serious injuries he suffered in the department-sponsored group home, and for providing services to the plaintiff, in particular, the one-to-one services that the plaintiff needed. The judge’s role in these hearings resulted in the department’s amending the plaintiff’s ISP to provide one-to-one care and a private room. The ISP was finally drafted to reflect those terms, but no settlement agreement was drafted or executed, and no order incorporating any such terms was entered. Cf. John T. v. Delaware County Intermediate Unit,
Even if the judge’s statements at the February and March hearings could be construed to satisfy Buckhannon’s judicial imprimatur requirement, it is doubtful that there was a “material alteration of the legal relationship,” also required by Buckhannon, supra at 604. See Carbonell v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.,
There is no claim that Buckhannon does not apply to this case; the plaintiff concedes the point.
We now address the plaintiff’s claim that the judge’s ruling that he is a Ricci class member is a sufficient basis under Buckhannon to confer “prevailing party” status on him.
3. Contempt. On March 29, 2000, the judge held a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief to obtain certain services from the department. On appeal, the department argues that the judge abused her discretion in later finding the department in contempt of an order the judge concluded she had issued orally at that hearing, namely, to provide one-to-one care and a private room to the plaintiff by April 30, 2000. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was not in a private room and was not receiving one-to-one services by April 30. But the hearing at which the judge ostensibly issued the order in fact contains no order on the subject. The judge’s conclusion that she had issued such an order, a conclusion she reached some six months later without the benefit of the transcript of the March 29 hearing, is clearly erroneous in light of the transcript that is now before us. As a result, the judge’s finding that the department was in contempt must be reversed.
To hold a party in contempt, “there must be a clear and unequivocal command and an equally clear and undoubted disobedience.” Nickerson v. Dowd,
In this case, the plaintiff’s complaint for contempt alleged that the department had failed to comply with two orders that he claimed the judge had issued orally on March 29: (1) that the department make specific changes in the wording of the plaintiff’s ISP, and (2) that certain components of that revised ISP (placement of the plaintiff in a private room and the provision of one-to-one services for approximately twenty-five hours each week) be implemented by April 30, 2000. In her December 1, 2000, memorandum and order on contempt, the judge found that, although she had ordered on March 29 that changes
The transcript of the March 29 hearing, which (as we have noted) was not available to the judge before she issued her ruling on contempt, contains nothing resembling an order that the department implement specific services by April 30. That date was contained in the ISP prepared by the department; the transcript reflects only the judge’s inquiries as to the funding status that would make April 30 a feasible date for implementation. The department’s answer to the judge was that while the ISP service coordinator had put the April 30 date in the ISP and understood that funding had been approved, the service coordinator did not know enough about the details of the funding mechanism to say for certain whether the April 30 date would in fact be met. See note 21, supra. Beyond this colloquy between the judge and the ISP service coordinator, the subject of the April 30 date, and the subject of the funding that would make the April 30 date achievable, did not come up again at any time throughout the remainder of the March 29 hearing. Instead, the judge turned her attention to resolving the two components of the ISP with which plaintiff’s counsel remained dissatisfied: the placement of the plaintiff in a private room, and the provision of one-to-one services. After a colloquy between the judge and the department on the one hand, and the judge and the plaintiff on the other, the department confirmed that the service coordinator had agreed to amend the ISP to provide those services, the plaintiff said that this was satisfactory, and the judge expressed the view that the parties had now “dealt with the ISP.”
The judge next addressed how the plaintiff’s pending motion
From this review of the transcript of the March 29 hearing, it does not appear that the judge ever ordered anything. She sidestepped the department’s legal objections to her authority to issue an order modifying the ISP by indicating that she was merely “asking” the department to do what the department had, on its own, already “agreed to.” To the extent there was any ambiguity in such terminology, the ultimate resolution of the hearing was that the plaintiff’s request for an injunction was denied as moot. What had rendered the motion moot was the department’s submission of an ISP and an agreement to make two modifications to the wording of that ISP. At most, the judge had exerted pressure on the department to prevent it from backing off its prior agreement with respect to those two modifications.
Even if one were to interpret this transcript as ordering the department to make the two amendments to the ISP (a point we need not decide, as the department was not found in contempt of that aspect of the ostensible “order”),
The burden of proving contempt is, of course, on the plaintiff. United States Time Corp. v. G.E.M. of Boston, Inc.,
That the department is not in contempt does not suggest that it is blameless in this affair. To the contrary, the department was under a legal obligation, even without a court order, to make good faith efforts to achieve the objectives set forth in its own
So ordered.
Notes
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources,
The judge held the department in contempt for its failure to provide the plaintiff with one-to-one care and a private room by a specific date, April 30, 2000.
The department has the responsibility to “take cognizance of all matters affecting the welfare of the mentally retarded citizens of the commonwealth,” G. L. c. 19B, § 1, and to “develop and maintain, subject to appropriation and in accordance with its standards, comprehensive community mental retardation services including specialized services for both children and adults.” G. L. c. 19B, § 13.
Also named as defendants were several department officials, in their individual and official capacities, and the group home where the plaintiff was living at the time of his injuries. The plaintiff later settled his negligence claims against the group home. One of the individual defendants was dismissed from the suit, and a directed verdict was entered in favor of the remaining individual defendants on all claims.
The department’s regulations in effect at the relevant time and promulgated pursuant to G. L. c. 19B, § 14, and G. L. c. 123B, § 2, provided: “It is the responsibility of the Department and its service providers to engage in service planning, including the provision of preliminary assessments, case management and comprehensive assessments, individual service plans and service referrals, in accordance with the provisions of [104 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 16.00] for the benefit of individuals requesting, receiving, and/or referred for mental health services.” 104 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.02(1) (1993).
An individual service plan (ISP) “shall identify services, programs and service providers based on: 1. the client’s needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment; and 2. the availability of specific services.” 104 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.05(1) (1993). An ISP “shall include: (a) the client’s needs in terms of assessed strengths and weaknesses, including identification of each client’s assessed physical health care needs and consideration of the client’s preferences regarding services; (b) optimal services to the client which reflect the client’s needs without references to existing resources; (c) available services, program and service providers which are, to the maximum extent possible, adequate, appropriate, consistent with the client’s needs and least restrictive of the client’s freedom; (d) target dates for commencement of each service or date each service commenced; (e) a description of means to ensure that services are provided in a coordinated and complementary manner; (f) a description of the means for monitoring the effectiveness of services to be provided . . . .” 104 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.05(5) (1993).
The plaintiff has argued throughout the litigation that the department was required to provide him with one-to-one care and supervision, in part because of his degenerative neurological disorder.
On November 6, 1995, the plaintiff filed a request for a preliminary injunc
On January 17, 1996, the judge issued an order requiring that the parties either “complete informal discussions to resolve this case” or “submit then-joint or separate proposed orders for an accelerated I.S.P. process for plaintiff.” On March 1, 1996, the judge denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, concluding that “[i]n view of the [department’s] agreement to provide a final Individual Service Plan under 104 [Code Mass. Regs.] § 16.11 within one week . . . which plan may be appealed by the guardian under 104 [Code Mass. Regs.] § 16.11, the Court determines that there is no need for interlocutory relief at this time” (emphasis added).
The defendants’ motion for a directed verdict was also allowed on all claims, including negligence, as to the individual defendants. See note 5, supra.
In 1996, in response to the plaintiff’s initial request for injunctive relief, the department amended the plaintiff’s ISP. At the time the plaintiff was still in MGH. The 1996 ISP identified the “long range plan” for the plaintiff as living in a community-based residential placement, with one-to-one staffing “during his transition to the community, to be reviewed on a quarterly basis by his ISP Team.” Apparently because the plaintiff’s guardian and the department could not agree on a suitable residential placement when the plaintiff was discharged from MGH, the department provided no services to the
Ricci v. Okin,
The department appealed from the December 1, 2000, ruling, which awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and held the department in contempt. The plaintiff appealed from the December 1, 2000, denial of attorney’s fees for the contempt action.
The plaintiff claimed that there were only two alternatives for him: one alternative would confine him “to his wheelchair and his bed,” and the second would allow him “to walk, with a helping hand, and to enjoy life as best he can.” As the judge later found, in preparing a revised ISP, “community participation was then probably the most important ingredient to enable [the plaintiff] to maximize his potential,” and the nursing home was unable to provide the plaintiff with access to the community.
At a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion, the judge ordered the department to evaluate the plaintiff and prepare a new ISP. The department’s regulations required that it convene an ISP meeting within ten days, but no later than thirty days, of the completion of the assessment report. See 104 Code Mass. Regs. § 16.05(2) (1993).
After a discussion with a physical therapist treating the plaintiff, the judge “order[ed]” in the meantime that the nursing home where the plaintiff resided “continue to do what it is doing,” that is, work with the plaintiff to increase his ability to walk, and that the costs be borne by the department.
A copy of the 2000 ISP is not included in the record. The judge read the quoted portion from the ISP into the record at the March 29 hearing.
According to the ISP service coordinator’s testimony, her role at the department is to “coordinate and facilitate” the ISP process, “coordinate services between residential and day providers,” “assist people applying for benefits . . . such as . . . food stamps,” and “act as an advocate on people’s behalf.”
While living in the department-sponsored group home, the plaintiff had
The judge later found that, as a “direct result” of the department’s being served with the complaint for contempt on June 1, 2000, the plaintiff was moved to a private room on June 5, the department produced an ISP that incorporated the provision of a private room and approximately twenty-five hours of one-to-one care per week on June 13, 2000, and the plaintiff started receiving one-to-one care on June 16.
On August 10, 2000, the judge issued an order finding that the plaintiff was a member of the class of litigants entitled to lifetime services under Ricci. She further found that, as “the result of the proceedings in this matter,” the department had provided the plaintiff with an ISP (“dated February 11, 2000 as modified on March 29, 2000 and with further modification as ordered on March 29, 2000”) that substantially complied with the requirements of Ricci.
When asked whether she could “tell us what the court ordered on March 29th, if anything, pertaining to one-to-one visitation and care,” the ISP service coordinator responded: “I think that ... the one-to-one for [the plaintiff] would be in place on April 30.” Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs counsel asked the ISP service coordinator again whether she had “any doubt” that the judge had ordered the one-to-one services to commence by April 30. She answered: “I, I’m not sure if I was the one who said it could be done by April 30th or not. To be honest with you, I don’t know what — I was saying, ‘Yes, I thought it could be done by April 30th.’ And I, I don’t know if that was a direct order that it had to be done or if it was me saying that’s when I, in all good faith, thought that we could have them in place.” When plaintiff’s counsel pressed her on the same point, she again responded: “I don’t recall if it was the [j]udge who ordered it, or if it was what we had put into the ISP and we had all agreed upon.”
The full transcript of the March 29, 2000, hearing was not filed with the court until June 16, 2003.
The plaintiff filed his motion for attorney’s fees and costs on September 14, 2000.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) authorizes a judge, in her discretion, to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in civil rights litigation. See id. (“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [42 U.S.C. § 1983] ... the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs”). See also Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River,
Where, as here, a plaintiff brings an action alleging both Federal constitutional claims under § 1983 and State law claims, “the plaintiff need not obtain a final, favorable determination of his constitutional claims in order to claim an attorney’s fee under § 1988. It is enough that the constitutional claims are ‘substantial,’ and arise from the same nucleus of facts on which the State law claims are based.” Stratos v. Department of Pub. Welfare,
The judge held the department in contempt for its failure to provide the plaintiff with one-to-one care and a private room by April 30, 2000, and awarded the plaintiff damages based on the cost of a private room from April 30 to June 4 and of one-to-one services from April 30 to June 16. With respect to the plaintiff’s ISP itself, the judge found that her March 29, 2000, order did not “specify a deadline” by which the department was required to amend the ISP and that her order therefore could not sustain a finding of contempt to that effect. Although the department had incorporated the private room requirement and the requirement of twenty-five hours of one-to-one care per week into the plaintiff’s ISP, the judge found that the department had not used specific language “agreed to by [the department]” in the ISP. The judge therefore ordered the department to incorporate specific language into the
The judge initially ruled that she was “divested of jurisdiction to act” on the department’s motion for reconsideration because notices of appeal had been filed. On February 19, 2002, an assistant attorney general wrote a letter to the judge arguing that the Superior Court retained jurisdiction on posttrial motions as long as the appeal had not yet been docketed in the Appeals Court. See Garland v. Beverly Hosp. Corp.,
The plaintiff also argues that the pretrial December, 1995, “notice of docket entry” and March 1, 1996, order denying his request for a preliminary injunction, see note 8, supra, are the “functional equivalent of a consent decree” and, therefore, conferred “prevailing party” status on him at that time. This claim is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore waived. See, e.g., Porter v. Treasurer & Collector of Taxes of Worcester,
The plaintiff further argues that because the judge ordered the department to amend his ISP within thirty days of her December 1, 2000, memorandum and order, see note 25, supra, he is a “prevailing party.” The order was not clear — the judge initially ordered the department to amend the ISP within twenty days of the entry of her decision, and later in the same order changed that to thirty days. Moreover, according to the judge’s findings, the department had already incorporated the private room and one-to-one care requirements into the plaintiff’s ISP; the department had simply not used “the specific language agreed to by [the department] and ordered by this Court.” We conclude that the December 1, 2000, order did not result in a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties. See Buckhannon, supra at 604-605.
In rejecting the “catalyst theory,” the Buckhannon Court noted that it “spawn[s] a second litigation” requiring “analysis of the defendant’s subjective motivations in changing its conduct” (citation omitted). Buckhannon, supra at 609. Here, the “second litigation” involves interpretation of the judge’s own statements. In such a case the judge herself is “in the best position to determine whether [her] statements . . . should be considered as the functional equivalent of a judicial order within the meaning of Buckhannon.” New England Regional Council of Carpenters v. Kinton,
The department acknowledges that the orders were “to speed up the process of producing a final ISP” and notes that the orders “did not prescribe either the contents of the ISP or the provision of services.”
In Preservation Coalition of Erie County v. Federal Transit Admin.,
The Buckhannon rule “must be given Ml retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review.” Toms v. Taft,
On appeal the Department of Mental Retardation was represented by the Attorney General.
The department claims that the judge’s finding that the plaintiff is a Ricci class member is clearly erroneous. At an early stage of the Ricci proceedings, the judge stated that “a ‘class member’ is defined as any person residing at or on the residential rolls of one of the [State] institutions ... on or after the following dates: Belchertown, 2/2/72.” Ricci v. Callahan,
It does not appear that the judge had before her evidence that the plaintiff resided in the Belchertown State institution only until 1967. That evidence was presented to a different judge in 1995. See note 8, supra. She did, however, have a copy of the “legal notice” naming the plaintiff as a Ricci class member. A copy of the class member identification list does not appear in the record. In light of the conflicting evidence we cannot conclude that the judge’s finding was clearly erroneous.
As required by Ricci and the department’s current regulations, if the plaintiff’s name appears on the class member identification list, he qualifies for “special eligibility” for the department’s services. See 115 Code Mass. Regs. § 6.05(1) (2003). “Special eligibility” entitles clients to the same services as clients with “general eligibility,” with two exceptions. First, persons with “special eligibility” are entitled to “the least restrictive, most typical, appropriate residential environment, together with the most appropriate treatment, training and support services suited to that person’s individual needs.” Ricci v. Okin, supra at 987 n.2. See 115 Code Mass. Regs. § 6.05(2)(e) (2003). Second, persons with “special eligibility” receive priority if the department lacks resources to provide services to all of its clients. See 115 Code Mass. Regs. § 6.07(l)(a) (2003) (“Except as to individuals who have special eligibility pursuant to 115 [Code Mass. Regs. §] 6.05, all supports, including assessments, planning and development and implementation of Individual Service Plans, are subject to the availability of resources”).
The plaintiff’s reliance on cases outside the Buckhannon context is inapposite. See Sumner v. Mata,
The department apparently did understand that some order had issued because it moved for reconsideration of the March 29 “order.” The department’s motion addressed the judge’s ostensible order that the department amend the ISP to include provision of a private room and one-to-one services for the plaintiff, but made no reference to the judge’s having ordered a particular implementation date. Just as the record contains no order that services be implemented by April 30, it contains no admission from the department that the order included such a term.
The plaintiff points to the ISP service coordinator’s electronic mail message (e-mail) as evidence that the department understood that the judge had entered that order. In her testimony at the contempt hearing, the ISP service coordinator confirmed that the first sentence of the e-mail in question reflects that “[t]he start date [the ISP service coordinator] gave the [c]curt was April 30th.” That is an accurate reflection of what is contained in the transcript of the March 29 hearing, where the coordinator indicated to the judge that she had put the April 30 date in the ISP and explained her expectation, but not certainty, that the funding would be in place by that time. In another question posed to the ISP service coordinator at the contempt hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel, referring to the same e-mail, asked her if it reflected that she, the service coordinator, gave “the deadline for providing services to [the plaintiff] as April 30th.” She answered in the affirmative. This does not, by itself, indicate that any “deadline” was imposed by the judge. The e-mail establishes nothing more than what the transcript of the March 29 hearing establishes, i.e., that the ISP service coordinator made certain representations to the judge at the March 29 hearing about the April 30 date that was already set in the ISP.