Opinion
CASE NO. 1:18-CV-1849
06-19-2019
TATAYANA MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 84] :
Plaintiffs, former recruits at the Cleveland Police Academy, brought this suit under 20 U.S.C. § 1983. With their complaint, they allege that Defendants violated their procedural due process rights by terminating them on plagiarism charges without giving them notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants. Defendants now move for attorney's fees and $14,856.49 in costs.
Doc. 82.
Doc. 84. Plaintiffs oppose. Doc. 85.
District courts may award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in § 1983 actions, but only where the plaintiff's action was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation."
See 42 U.S.C. 1988 (providing that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee as part of costs" in § 1983 actions).
Garner v. Cuyahoga Cty. Juvenile Court, 554 F.3d 624, 636 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wayne v. Vill. of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 530 (6th Cir.1994)). To determine whether the action is frivolous, the Court considers, inter alia, "whether the issue is one of first impression requiring judicial resolution, [and] whether the controversy is sufficiently based upon a real threat of injury to the plaintiff[.]" Id.
Plaintiffs' action was none of those things. Plaintiffs raised close questions of state law and federal constitutional law. Plaintiffs' property-interest claim turned on a complex Cleveland Civil Service Rules interpretation issue. Their liberty-interest claim involved a factually close claim on a legal issue that has divided the circuits. The Court denies Defendants' sought attorney's fees.
See generally Doc. 82.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), the Court generally awards costs to the prevailing party. However, the Court may decline to do so when it would be inequitable under all circumstances in the case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (providing that costs other than attorney's fees "should be allowed to the prevailing party").
While Defendants did not bog down the case or "inject[] unmeritorious issues," the other relevant factors disfavor awarding costs.
White & White v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 786 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir. 1986).
First, the claimed expenses are "unnecessary or unreasonably large." Defendants spent $3,658.86 scanning Plaintiffs' academy notebooks and $7,860.13 on hearing and deposition transcripts; neither played a substantive role in their summary judgment motion. Second, as discussed, the case was "close and difficult." Third, Plaintiffs litigated the case in good faith. Finally, the case had public importance. The public has an interest in the integrity of the Cleveland Police Academy and the fairness of its disciplinary procedures.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 733 (public benefit is one factor courts may consider when awarding costs).
Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for attorney's fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 19, 2019
s/ James S . Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE