Akrawi v. Remillet et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting plaintiff's (application) Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs 38 filed by Ragheed Akrawi. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAGEED AKRAWI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-CV-13234
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
JOHN REMILLET, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS [DOC. 38]
Plaintiff Rageed Akrawi filed his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action against defendants John
Remillet and Barbara Sampson in their individual and official capacities. The complaint
asserted that defendants violated plaintiff’s right, under the Fourth Amendment and
Michigan law, to be free from false imprisonment and false arrest when they ordered
him to report to the Parole Office or face arrest after he had been discharged from his
parole. Plaintiff also alleged defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment and state
due process rights by cancelling his parole discharge without first providing notice and a
hearing. Plaintiff sought a declaration that his constitutional rights were violated, an
injunction reinstating the discharge of parole, and compensatory and punitive damages.
This court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part by declaring that his
due process rights had been violated and ordering that he be given a hearing within 60
days, as outlined in the court’s opinion and order.
Plaintiff filed his application to recover his attorney fees and costs as a prevailing
party in a case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel expended 107.4 hours on the litigation, for which he
charges an hourly rate of $300, for a total fee of $32,220. Costs are sought in the

amount of $798.93. The total recovery requested by plaintiff is $33,018.93.
The degree of success obtained by a civil rights plaintiff is the most critical factor
in determining the reasonableness of a fee award. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114
(1992). Defendants argue that plaintiff only achieved half of the relief he sought in his
complaint where the court granted his request for declaratory relief, but dismissed his
claims for monetary relief. According to defendants, any award for attorney fees should
correspondingly be reduced by half.
Under the law set forth by the Supreme Court, as a prevailing plaintiff in a civil
rights case, plaintiff is entitled to an award for time reasonably expended on the case,
billed at a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1985). To
be considered a prevailing party, a plaintiff need not win on every point, but must
generally succeed on a significant issue which achieves some of the benefit the party
sought in bringing suit. Id. (citation omitted); see also, Farrar, 506 U.S. at 114. Plaintiff
meets the definition of prevailing party in this case.
Given attorney Manville’s expertise in the area of prisoners’ rights, the court finds
that his hourly rate of $300 is reasonable in the prevailing market. In addition, Mr.
Manville’s experience undoubtedly enables him to spend less time litigating prisoner
cases than other, less-qualified attorneys. The court GRANTS plaintiff’s application for
attorney fees in the amount of $32,220.00 and costs in the amount of $798.93, for a
total award of $33,018.93.
Dated: November 8, 2011
S/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon parties/attorneys of
record on
November 8, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

3