Battle v. Anderson
1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13173, 541 F. Supp. 1061 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a successful civil rights action, a reasonable attorney's fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is calculated by applying a multi-factor test that evaluates the circumstances of the litigation, including the novelty of the issues, the results obtained, the attorneys' skill, and the undesirability of the case, with the hourly rate adjusted for the distinct phases of the litigation.
Facts:
- In August 1972, inmates in the Oklahoma prison system initiated a lawsuit concerning unconstitutional prison conditions.
- Attorney Mary E. Bane took on the case, eventually representing a class of all inmates in the state's prison system.
- In July 1973, a disastrous riot occurred at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, resulting in loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage.
- The lawsuit revealed widespread constitutional violations, including racial discrimination, lack of due process, cruel and unusual punishment, inadequate medical care, and restrictions on religious freedom.
- Attorney Louis W. Bullock became lead counsel for the plaintiffs in October 1975, and attorney Carl G. Stevens joined the legal team in late 1977.
- The litigation ultimately secured comprehensive court orders mandating the closure of cell houses, reduction of prison populations, and sweeping reforms to medical care, sanitation, and inmate rights.
- Following years of contentious litigation characterized by state noncompliance, Oklahoma's political leaders voluntarily pledged in April 1979 to cooperate in remedying the constitutional violations.
- This shift transformed the final phase of the litigation from adversarial confrontation to negotiation and the formalization of compliance standards.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs' attorneys filed applications for attorney's fees in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on September 25, 1980.
- The court initially scheduled a procedural hearing but struck it to allow for pretrial preparations after considering the use of an advisory jury.
- The court ultimately decided an advisory jury was not necessary.
- The district court held a hearing on the motion for attorney's fees on March 8, 1982, where experts testified regarding the reasonableness of the requested fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the calculation of a reasonable attorney's fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for a prevailing party in a complex, multi-phase civil rights lawsuit require a detailed analysis of factors such as the difficulty of the litigation's different phases, the attorneys' experience, and the results obtained?
Opinions:
Majority - Bohanon, District Judge
Yes. The calculation of a reasonable attorney's fee requires a court to apply the twelve-factor test from Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, analyzing each factor as it pertains to the distinct phases of the litigation. The court first determined the plaintiffs were the 'prevailing party' because their legal work was reasonably calculated to achieve the main issue: enforcing minimum constitutional requirements for penal confinement. To calculate the fee, the court divided the decade-long litigation into four phases, from 'pioneering constitutional issues' to cooperative 'formalization.' For each attorney, the court applied the twelve Johnson factors, considering the time and labor, novelty of questions, skill required, customary fee, experience, and 'undesirability' of the case. The court awarded different hourly rates for different phases, reflecting that the early, adversarial phases involving novel legal questions required greater skill and involved more risk than the later phases focused on compliance and negotiation. The significant assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Justice was also factored in to determine the plaintiffs' counsel's actual burden.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a detailed roadmap for calculating attorney's fees in complex, long-term public interest litigation. It establishes the principle that a 'reasonable' fee is not static but should reflect the evolving nature of the case, rewarding pioneering and difficult work more highly than later, less contentious phases. The court's phase-by-phase application of the Johnson factors offers a nuanced framework that prevents windfalls while ensuring attorneys are adequately compensated for vindicating civil rights. This approach has influenced how courts assess fees in other protracted institutional reform cases, emphasizing a granular analysis over a simple multiplication of hours and a single hourly rate.
