Kayla Thomas, et al v. Nancy Buckner, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Joan Raney and Kayla Thomas. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16142

Date Filed: 09/27/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16142
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00245-WKW-CSC

KAYLA THOMAS,
JOAN RANEY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
NANCY BUCKNER,
in her personal capacity and in her official
capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama
Department of Human Resources,
KIM MASHEGO,
in her personal capacity and in her official
capacity as Director of The Shelby County
Department of Human Resources,
Defendants – Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(September 27, 2017)

Case: 16-16142

Date Filed: 09/27/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Before MARCUS, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kayla Thomas and Joan Raney were notified by letter from The Shelby
County Department of Human Resources that an investigation had been concluded
and that as a result their names would be listed on a state registry as persons who
committed child abuse. They then filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging various constitutional claims, as well as state law claims, against Kim
Mashego, Director of The Shelby County Department of Human Resources, and
Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of The Alabama Department of Human Resources.
Thomas and Raney sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.
Before the case went to trial, the district court granted Defendants’ Motion to Stay.
The stay was granted because the Defendants offered Thomas and Rainey an
administrative hearing to challenge their indication on the state registry as child
abusers. The administrative law judge (ALJ) sided with Thomas and Rainey,
ruling that there was not sufficient evidence to support the indication on the
registry. After the administrative proceeding, the district court dismissed Thomas
and Rainey’s claims as moot. They filed a motion for attorney’s fees which the
district court denied. Thomas and Rainey appeal that denial.
Whether a party is a prevailing party for attorney’s fees is a legal question
that we review de novo. Church of Scientology Flag Serv., Org., Inc. v. City of
2

Case: 16-16142

Date Filed: 09/27/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1509, 1513 (11th Cir. 1993). To be a prevailing party there
needs to be a “judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.”
See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,
532 U.S. 598, 605, 121 S. Ct. 1835, 1840 (2001). There needs to be a “judicial
imprimatur on the change.” Id., 121 S. Ct. at 1840. Thomas and Rainey allege
that the ALJ’s decision provided the necessary judicial imprimatur. 1 However, the
ALJ’s decision did not grant relief on their § 1983 claim; they obtained no
judicially sanctioned change as to the claim. Therefore, they are not prevailing
parties under § 1983.
AFFIRMED.

1

Thomas and Rainey did not raise the argument in front of the district court that the
Motion to Stay constituted the judicially sanctioned changed. That argument is waived on
appeal. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
3