10-15-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

able relief. 649 F.2d at 521. The Seventh Circuit concluded that such a construction would contradict the unqualified language of 51988. Section 1988 explicitly extends to all 51983 actions, without regard to the number of plaintiffs or type of relief sought. Citations oeitted. A prevailing plaintiff in a 51983 action "shaild receive fees almost as a matter of course," Davis v. NurPhy, 587 F.2d 362, 364 (7th Cir. 1978), unless e � spl eircumstances render surh an award unjust. Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d at 521 (emphasis added). Further, in Ronczak v. Tyrrell, 603 F.2d 13, 19 (7th Cir. 1979), the Seventh Circuit specifically rejected a defendant's claim that plaintiffs should receive no attorney's fees because their lawsuit vindicated a private,.rather than a public, interest. The First Circuit has also rejected the notion that a plaintiff must further a public interest to be entitled to his reasonable attorney's fees under S1988. indeed, in support of this conclusion the First Circuit quoted Zarcone V. Perry, 58. F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), a case heavily relied upon by the City herein. See City's Reply Brief at 22-23. (T]he Second Circuit, in rejecting the district court's reasoning in Zarcone, noted "that in authorizing awards of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs in civil righ�s actions Congress was concerned with enforcement not o ', of the civil rights of the public at large and of '.':ntifiable —oups but also with the ri hts of indly idual lain- fs. Its goa was to remove financial impe invents •might preclude or hinder 'private citizens,' c.ilectively or individuall}. from being 'able to assert their civil rights,' senate Report at p. 2, U.S. Code Cong. a Admin. News 1976, l• 5910. . We therefor• rejec+ the view that, to be eligible for shifting of attorneys' fees, the civi' I ghts plaintiff is obligated