Johnson v. Hinds County Board, et al

Filing 329

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY FEES re 319 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Carl E. Medlock, Delanio Sanders, William H. Thornton, Willie E. Johnson Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/8/2019 (ab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROGER JOHNSON

PLAINTIFF

vs.

CIVIL ACTION No.: 3:04-CV-393-HTW-FKB

WILLIE E. JOHNSON, et al

DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY FEES
BEFORE THIS COURT is the request for attorney fees filed by the defendants in their
response to plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial [315] and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
[316]. [Docket no. 319]. By their motion, defendants ask this court to grant them reasonable
attorney fees because they had to respond to allegedly frivolous motions. Plaintiff does not address
defendants’ request for attorney fees, he merely repeats his prior arguments, none of which touches
on attorney fees.
This court notes that at the close of the jury trial of this matter, this court awarded
defendants prevailing party status and, as such, granted attorney fees to defendants upon a filing
of an itemized bill of costs and fees. Defendants, at that time, decided to forego attorney fees.
Shortly following the entry of the final judgment in this lawsuit, plaintiff filed his first consignment
of post-judgment motions, which this court denied, warning plaintiff that the United States Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals had already addressed his contentions and found his arguments wanting.
See [Docket no. 314]. Undeterred
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has cautioned pro se plaintiffs before that
it would not impose sanctions on the first iteration of frivolous filings, but would do so if the pro
se plaintiff continued to file frivolous motions. See Grigsby v. Potter, 291 Fed. App’x 673 (5th Cir.
2008). This court has already so cautioned the instant pro se plaintiff and warned him that further

1

frivolity would pose sanctionable conduct. This court further cautioned plaintiff that he shall not
file any more motions challenging whether the lawsuit sub judice presented a “condition of
confinement” or “an episodic act or omission.”1 Undeterred by this court’s admonition, plaintiff
again filed several motions challenging which standard applied and this court denied such motions
as frivolous. See [Docket no. 326].
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendants’ request for attorney fees is hereby
GRANTED and defendants must submit their bill of costs and attorney fees within thirty (30) days
of this order for this court’s review and approval.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ bill of costs and attorney fees encompasses
only their responses to plaintiffs’ motions at [Docket nos. 315, 316, 321, and 323].
SO ORDERED this the 8th day of March, 2019.
s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that this lawsuit presented “an episodic act or
omission”. See Johnson v. Johnson, 694 F. App'x 945, 946 (5th Cir. 2017).

2