Hughes v. Rowe et al.
449 U.S. 5 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action may only recover attorney's fees from the plaintiff if the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. An unrepresented prisoner's claim that they were placed in segregation without a prior hearing is not frivolous, as such confinement may violate procedural due process unless justified by emergency conditions.
Facts:
- On September 20, 1977, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, the petitioner, was charged with a violation of prison regulations for consuming a homemade alcoholic beverage.
- At the time he was charged, the petitioner admitted to a prison Captain that he had been drinking.
- Immediately upon being charged, corrections officers placed the petitioner in a segregation cell.
- Two days later, on September 22, 1977, the petitioner received a disciplinary hearing.
- At the hearing, the petitioner again admitted to consuming the alcohol.
- As a result of the hearing, the petitioner was sentenced to 10 days in segregation, demoted to C-grade, and lost 30 days of statutory good time.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against respondent corrections officers.
- Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The District Court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss.
- The District Court then ordered the petitioner to show cause why he should not be taxed for respondents' attorney's fees.
- After petitioner failed to respond, the District Court awarded $400 in attorney's fees to the respondents.
- The District Court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, stating the suit was 'meritless'.
- The petitioner (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's fee award in an unpublished order.
- The petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an unrepresented prisoner's civil rights complaint considered 'frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation' for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, where the complaint alleges a potentially valid due process violation for being placed in segregation for two days without a prior hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. An unrepresented prisoner's complaint is not considered 'frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation' simply because it is dismissed, especially when it raises an arguable due process claim such as being placed in segregation without a prior hearing. The standard for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in a civil rights case requires a finding that the plaintiff's action was 'frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation,' as established in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC. This standard applies with special force to uncounseled prisoners, and a claim is not groundless merely because it is ultimately dismissed. Here, the petitioner's claim that he was placed in segregation for two days without a prior hearing was not properly dismissed, as segregation without a prior hearing may violate due process unless justified by emergency conditions, and the defendants provided no evidence of such an emergency. Because this claim was at least arguable and should have survived a motion to dismiss, it was not frivolous, and the award of attorney's fees must be vacated.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The complaint was meritless from its inception because the petitioner's own admissions fatally undermine any claim of a constitutional violation, thereby justifying the award of attorney's fees. The petitioner admitted at the time of the incident and in his complaint that he had been drinking and was intoxicated. Prison officials must be accorded 'wide-ranging deference' in actions taken to preserve institutional security, and placing an admittedly intoxicated inmate in segregation is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Since the petitioner's guilt was not in question, a pre-segregation hearing would have served no purpose. Because the complaint was groundless on its face, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in deeming the suit 'meritless' under the Christiansburg standard and awarding fees.
Concurring - Justice White
No. The claim was not frivolous because state prison regulations, which trigger Fourteenth Amendment protections under Wolff v. McDonnell, required a prior hearing before imposing segregation, and no justification for dispensing with the hearing was shown. Due process protections were triggered because Illinois regulations created a liberty interest by specifying that segregation could only be imposed for serious lapses after a hearing. The regulations only permitted pre-hearing segregation for reasons of 'institutional security and safety,' which was not established on the record. While the claim is therefore not frivolous, any potential damages award would likely be nominal under Carey v. Piphus, as a full hearing was provided just two days later.
Analysis:
This case formally extends the high standard from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC for awarding attorney's fees to prevailing defendants from Title VII cases to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights actions. The decision creates a significant barrier for defendants seeking to recover fees from civil rights plaintiffs, protecting them from financial punishment for losing non-frivolous claims. The ruling has particular importance for pro se litigants, especially prisoners, by reinforcing the principles of Haines v. Kerner and ensuring that their inartfully pleaded but potentially meritorious claims are not chilled by the threat of fee awards.
Unlock the full brief for Hughes v. Rowe et al.