Jack Wayne Friend v. Ronald Kolodzieczak

965 F.2d 682 Jack Wayne FRIEND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ronald KOLODZIECZAK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 90-16140. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 1991. Decided May 19, 1992. Maureen C. Brooks and Richard Reynolds, Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard, Oakland, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Sue Ochs, Law Offices of Amitai Schwartz, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: PREGERSON, FERGUSON, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 This appeal presents the question whether the district court properly found appellees to be "prevailing parties" for an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . We have jurisdiction to review the district court's decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. BACKGROUND 2 A group of Roman Catholic jail inmates filed a class action suit against officials of Alameda County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Jack Friend is the named class representative in this suit. 3 Some issues…

This appeal presents the question whether the district court properly found appellees to be “prevailing parties” for an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A group of Roman Catholic jail inmates filed a class action suit against officials of Alameda County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Jack Friend is the named class representative in this suit.

Some issues were settled before trial. 1 The only remaining free exercise claim at trial concerned the right of jail inmates to keep rosary beads and scapulars with them at all times. 2 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Alameda County officials. The court concluded that jail policy prohibiting religious articles in prisoners’ cells was permissible under the Turner standard. 3 The court’s *684 order was, however, contingent upon submission by the officials of a revised prison manual setting forth prisoners’ limited rights to possess religious articles.

DISCUSSION

A district court may award attorney’s fees to the…

dissenting:

In this case the district court has ordered the taxpayers of Alameda County to pay thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees in a matter originating in a dispute between different religious groups. Because the defendants are not responsible for religious conflicts among private parties, I dissent.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an appeal from an award of attorney fees and costs to plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . The district court awarded fees and costs finding that “plaintiffs’ suit provided the impetus for defendants to more diligently attempt to arrange for personnel and to coordinate the services necessary to bring [Alameda] North County Jail practices in line with plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”

The district court thus found that plaintiffs were prevailing parties, despite the fact that it never found that the County at any time had deprived the plaintiffs of any constitutional rights. Parties may be considered prevailing parties when a violation of rights is found, see Romberg v. Nichols, 953 F.2d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.1992), or when they vindicate rights through settlement without formal relief. Sablan v. Dep’t of Finance of N. Mariana Islands, 856 F.2d 1317…