Miller v. Portland, No. 14-35783 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. After plaintiff filed suit against Portland, it made a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for $1,000, plus reasonable attorney's fees to be determined by the district court. Plaintiff accepted the offer, but when she moved for fees, the district court denied the motion on the ground that the award was a de minimis judgment under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The panel held that Portland's offer – and plaintiff's acceptance – which the panel interpreted as a contract, provided that plaintiff would receive her reasonable attorney's fees, without referencing section 1988 or otherwise reserving to the district court the antecedent question of whether plaintiff was entitled to a fee award. Accordingly, the panel remanded for a determination and award of a reasonable fee.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Attorney’s Fees. The panel reversed the district court’s order denying an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and remanded for the calculation and award of a reasonable fee award. Plaintiff sued the City of Portland and three Portland police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted Fourth Amendment violations. Portland made a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for $1,000, plus reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the district court, which plaintiff accepted. When plaintiff moved for fees, however, the district court denied the motion on the ground that the $1,000 award was a de minimis judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The panel held that the district court engaged in the wrong analysis when it applied principles governing § 1988 awards, rather than principles governing contract construction, to decide plaintiff’s fee motion. The panel held that a prevailing plaintiff under an accepted Rule 68 Offer, which provides for the award of reasonable attorney’s fees, is entitled, under the Rule 68 Offer, to an award of fees in some amount. Thus, the magistrate judge and the district court decided the wrong question – whether plaintiff was entitled to fees under § 1988 – rather than the amount of fees to which she was entitled under the Rule 68 Offer. The panel remanded for a determination and award of a reasonable fee. MILLER V. CITY OF PORTLAND 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.