Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-1223, Section "C" (5)
January 23, 2003
Before the Court is Defendants', St. Tammany Parish's and St. Tammany Parish Public Works Department's Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to FRCP Rule 54 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is DENIED.
Pro se Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1988 alleging that Defendants damaged their private property. On December 6, 2002, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. (Rec. Doc. 29). Under § 1988 a prevailing plaintiff is presumptively entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in all but special circumstances, but a prevailing defendant may recover fees only if the court finds that "the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S.Ct. 694, 700, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978); see also Dean v. Riser, 240 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2001). "The fact that a plaintiff may ultimately lose his case is not in itself a sufficient justification for the assessment of fees. The plaintiff's action must be meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without foundation." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980).
Defendants contend that with the dismissal of their previous, nearly identical lawsuit, "the boundary of the Plaintiff's property in relation to the parish owned right of way was conclusively established." (Rec. Doc. 30, p. 1). Thus, Defendants argue that the instant matter was frivolous because Plaintiff knew at the time of filing of this lawsuit that the alleged damage did not occur on his private property. Further, Defendants submit that Plaintiffs "purposely omitted the specific location of any alleged damage," in the instant Complaint. ( Id., p. 2).
Civil Action No. 01-0641.
The Court concedes that had this suit been filed by a licensed attorney, the prospect of imposing attorney's fees and costs on Plaintiffs would be almost certain. However, given Plaintiffs' pro se status, the Court is unprepared to presume that Plaintiffs purposefully omitted the exact location on the driveway of the alleged damage from their pleadings. Rather, the more likely presumption appears to be that Plaintiffs' omission was inadvertent and the result of inexperience in filing pleadings. Further, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs continue to express a failure to understand the legal significance of the property law concept of a right of way.
The Court notes that Plaintiffs' briefs to date, including their opposition to the imposition of attorney's fees and costs reflect a basic misunderstanding of property law or a refusal to accept the fact that the parish owned right of way is not their private property.
The Court finds that at the time Plaintiffs filed this action and/or filed the amended compliant to include the alleged damage to the driveway and walkway on June 18, 2002, that Plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous. For similar reasons, the Court previously denied Defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions. (Rec. Doc. 28). In considering Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions, however, the Court placed Plaintiffs on notice as to the Court's understanding of the extent of the parish right of way and the limits of Plaintiffs' private property. Therefore, any further lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs in contravention of the Court's understanding will be deemed frivolous and sanctionable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants', St. Tammany Parish's and St. Tammany Parish Public Works Department's Motion for Attorney's Fees is DENIED.