El-Tabech v. Houston, et al

Filing 243

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's supplemental motion for attorney's fees 233 is granted. Plaintiff is awarded an additional $73,360.20 in attorney's fees and $271.20 in recoverable costs. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (KBJ)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA M O H A M E D A. EL-TABECH, P la in tif f , v. H A R O L D W . CLARKE, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4 :0 4 C V 3 2 3 1 OR DER T h is matter is before the court on the plaintiff's supplemental motion for attorney's fe e s in connection with his motion for contempt, Filing No. 233. This court found that plaintiff w a s entitled to fees in an earlier order. See Filing No. 228. El-Tabech seeks $73,360.20 in a tto rn e y's fees and $271.20 in recoverable costs for a total fee and cost award of $ 7 3 ,6 3 1 .4 0 . The defendants argue that the fee application seeks fees that are, in part, not re c o v e ra b le because the plaintiff prevailed only on one of two issues presented in his motion fo r contempt and that the fees sought are excessive. A successful civil rights plaintiff is "normally entitled to fees" under 42 U.S.C. 1988. C o d y v. Hillard, 304 F.3d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 2002). A prisoner who prevails in a civil rights c la im under 42 U.S.C. 1983, is entitled to recover his fees subject to the provisions of the P ris o n Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d). Fees are allowed for w o rk undertaken by plaintiff's attorneys to monitor compliance with the court's orders and to e n fo rc e those orders and judgments that are a "necessary adjunc[t] to the initial litigation," a n d were directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. J e n k in s by Jenkins v. Missouri, 127 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 1997). In support of the motion for attorney's fees, plaintiff has submitted itemized and d e ta ile d contemporaneous time records and cost entries as well as affidavits from Lincoln, N e b r a s k a , attorneys attesting to the reasonableness of the fees and costs sought by plaintiff. S e e Filing No. 234, Index of Evid., Ex. 1, Affidavit of Gene Summerlin ("Summerlin Aff."), Ex. A , billing statement; Ex. 2, Affidavit of Jefferson Downing; Ex. 3, Affidavit of Pete W e g m a n . T h e court has reviewed the plaintiff's application, affidavits and time sheets. The plaintiff has s h o w n that he seeks a fee award only for work performed in connection with the issue on w h ic h he was successful--the kosher diet issue. See id., Summerlin Aff. at 5. The plaintiff d o e s not seek reimbursement of $15,360.60 in fees for post-judgment monitoring of plaintiff's p r a ye r claims. Id. The court finds that the time expended on post-judgment monitoring, e n fo rc e m e n t of the previous fee judgment, the motion for contempt, and the present fee a p p lic a tio n are reasonable in light of the defendants' conduct in this matter. Accordingly, the c o u rt finds El-Tabech is entitled to recover an additional $73,360.20 in attorney's fees and $ 2 7 1 .2 0 in recoverable costs. The fees and costs are the product of a reasonable number o f hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate and are fair, reasonable and customary within th e Lincoln, Nebraska, legal market for the type of work provided to El-Tabech. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1 . Plaintiff's supplemental motion for attorney's fees (Filing No. 233) is granted. 2. Plaintiff is awarded an additional $73,360.20 in attorney's fees and $271.20 in re c o v e ra b le costs. 3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and O rd e r. DATED this 10 th day of June, 2009. B Y THE COURT: s / Joseph F. Bataillon Chief District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?