Laserfiche WebLink
decision denying those fees, holding that Mr. Welsh's action was <br />essentially private in nature and not within the spirit of the <br />attorney's fee provision of the Civil Rights Act. Id. at 11-12. <br />Mr. Welsh herein contends that this Court has misconceived <br />and misapplied the relevant case law regarding the award of <br />attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. S1988 and has failed to consider <br />the degree to which Respondent's action advances the public <br />interest. <br />ARGUMENT <br />1. A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF W 0 HAS OBTAINED INJUNCTIVE <br />RELIEF TO VINDICATE HIS CIVIL RIGHTS NEED NOT HAVE <br />ADVANCED A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN ORDER TO RZCOVER <br />REASONA.BL£ ATTORNEY'S FEES. <br />At -ached to the trial court's Order denying tir. Welsh's <br />request to petition for an award of attorney's fees was the <br />following Memorandum: <br />MEMORANDUM <br />It must be remembered that the power to award <br />attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. 51988 is a discretionary <br />power. It is the opinion of this Court that an award of <br />attorneys' fees would be inappropriate in the case at <br />hand. As a general rule, an award of attorneys' fees is <br />punitive in nature. In this case there is no indication <br />of any misconduct by defendant that would warrant an <br />award of attorneys' fees. The plaintiff merely has <br />asserted a private right for wh_;_:r he has been given <br />relief. <br />Memorandum of Judge .rving C. Iverson, August 1, 1983 (emphasis <br />added). <br />This Court affirmed Judge Iverson's decision in spite of his <br />obvious reliance on the errc.:eous premise that fees under 42 <br />U.S.C. 11988 should only be awarded against a defendant who acts <br />in bad faith (see Respondent's Brief and Appendix at 27-29). <br />MC <br />