Commodore v. Calvert County Board of County Commissioners et al, No. 8:2007cv00661 - Document 71 (D. Md. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to James Butler and c/s to Plaintiff via Rosslyn Harris, USPO 10/13/09 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/13/09. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ROBERT L. COMMODORE : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 07-0661 : CALVERT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending are Plaintiff s original and supplemental motions for attorneys fees. (Papers 67, 69). For the Commodore was following reasons, the motions will be denied. After a jury trial, Plaintiff Robert L. awarded one dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants on all other claims. Plaintiff now seeks an award of $68,690.00 in attorneys fees. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney s fee as part of the costs. . . . Courts have interpreted this provision to mean that prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights actions shall ordinarily receive fees and costs as long as no special circumstances render an award unjust. Clark v. Sims, 894 F.Supp. 868, 870 (D.Md. 1995) (citing Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968)). 1988, Congress private intended attorney to encourage generals. Texas In enacting § plaintiffs State to Teachers act as Ass n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 793 (1989)); see also Newman, 390 U.S. at 401-02. Unlike most private tort litigants, a civil rights plaintiff seeks to vindicate important civil and constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms. City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986). The award of nominal damages prevailing party under § 1988. does render Plaintiff a [A] plaintiff prevails when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between plaintiff. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1992). The damages in any amount, directly the the is that modifying benefits standard way by behavior party a parties defendant s prevailing in the satisfied whether by a compensatory judgment or for nominal. Farrar, 506 U.S. at 111-12; see also Mercer v. Duke University, 401 F.3d 199, 203 (4th Cir. 2005). Eligibility for a fee award, however, is not the same as entitlement: 2 [T]he district court has discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable fee, a determination that requires the court to consider the extent of the plaintiff s success. See Farrar, 506 U.S. at 114, 113 S.Ct. 566 ( Once civil rights litigation materially alters the legal relationship between the parties, the degree of the plaintiff s overall success goes to the reasonableness of a fee award.... (internal quotation marks omitted)). If the prevailing party has recovered only nominal damages, the Supreme Court has explained that the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. Farrar, 506 U.S. at 115, 113 S.Ct. 566 (emphasis added); see also id. ( In some circumstances, even a plaintiff who formally prevails under § 1988 should receive no attorney s fees at all. A plaintiff who seeks compensatory damages but receives no more than nominal damages is often such a prevailing party.... (emphasis added)). Mercer, 401 F.3d at 203. Here, Plaintiff asserts generally nonmonetary. by the record. The that the relief sought was That assertion is totally unsupported complaint sought only compensatory and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate. The entire tenor of the litigation was a quest for a large damages award. On that point, Plaintiff achieved almost none of the relief requested. The case also did not involve novel legal issues. While excessive force claims are always serious, Plaintiff s nominal damage verdict did not serve to advance the state of the law. Furthermore, this verdict was against the officer personally and 3 not in his official capacity; thus, the suit and limited verdict did not serve a public purpose. Moreover, the file reflects repeated discovery lapses by Plaintiff s counsel, not only in failing to respond to Defendants legitimate requests, but also in failing to timely fashion. pursue discovery on behalf of Plaintiff in a In sum, the limited success evidenced by the verdict justifies no award of attorneys fees. A separate order will be entered. ________/s/__________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 4

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.