Johnson v. Allen et al

Filing 128

ORDER denying 79 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 88 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 89 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 92 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 101 Motion to Strike ; granting 102 Motion to Strike ; granting 115 Motion to Strike ; granting 116 Motion to Strike ; granting 117 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 4/25/2019. Sent to Brad R. Johnson at 111 SE 14th Street Oak Island, NC 28465 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTII CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:18-CV-14-D
BRAD R. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On September 7, 2018, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss Brad R. Johnson's

("Johnson" or ''plaintift'') first amended complaint [D.E. 77, 78]. Defendants moved for attorneys' .
fees [D.E. 79, 88, 92] and filed memoranda in support [D.E. 80, 91, 93]. Johnson responded in
opposition [D.E. 96, 109, 111]. Defendants moved to strike Johnson's responses [D.E. 102,
116-17], and Hodges and Simmons replied [D.E. 119].
On October 5, 2018, Johnson moved to alter and amend the court's judgment [D.E. 89] and

filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 90]. Defendants responded in opposition [D.E. 95, 104] and
moved to strike Johnson's memorandum in support [D.E. 101]. Johnson replied [D.E. 105, 110,
112], and defendants moved to strike one of Johnson's replies [D.E. 115]. As explained below, the
court denies defendants' motions for attorneys' fees, denies Johnson's motion to alter and amend the
judgment, and grants defendants' motions to strike.
I.

Defendants seek an award of attorneys' fees pursUant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the court's
inherent powers [D.E. 79, 88, 92]. "Section 1988(b) confers discretion on courts to award attorneys

fees to the prevailing party in an action brought under, inter ali~ 42 U.S.C. § 1983." DeBauche v.
Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 510 (4th Cir. 1999). A prevailing plaintiff "should ordinarily recover an
attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Hensley v.
Eckerhart,461 U.S. 424,429 (1983) (quotation omitted); Lefeminev. Wideman, 758F.3d551, 555 .
(4th Cir. 20 14). "A much stricter standard applies, however, when a court is requested to make such
an award to a prevailing defendant." Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103, 127 (4th Cir. 2009). For a
prevailing defendant to recover its attorneys' fees under section 1988, ''the plaintiff's claims must
have been either frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or the plaintiff must have continued to
litigate after the claim became so." Id. (quotations and alteration omitted); see Hughes v. Rowe, 449
U.S. 5, 14 (1980) (per curiam); DeBauche, 191 F.3dat510. TheFourthCircuithasrecognized that
"awarding attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant is a conservative tool, to be used sparingly in
those cases in which the plaintiff presses a claim which he knew or should have known was
groundless, frivolous, or unreasonable." Eqwil Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Great Steaks. Inc.,
667 F.3d 510, 517 (4th Cir. 2012) (alteration and quotation omitted); see Arnold v. Burger King
Corp., 719 F.2d 63, 65 (4th Cir. 1983).
The record does not support awarding attorneys' fees to defendants. Accordingly, the court
denies defendants' motions for attorneys' fees.
As for defendants' motions to strike various memoranda that Johnson filed, Local Civil Rule
J

7.2(f) governs page limits for memoranda, and Local Civil Rule 10.1 governs the forms of
memoranda. See Local Civ. R. 7.2(f), 10.1. Johnson's memoranda far exceed the authorized page
limits, and Johnson disregards Local Civil Rule 10.1. See [D.E. 90, 96, 109--11]. Accordingly, the
court grants defendants' motions to strike.

2

On October 5, 2018, Johnson moved to amend or alter the court'sjudgmentpursuantto Rule

59(e) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [D.E. 89]. "A Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted
in three situations: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for
new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." Mayfield v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing. Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir.
2012) (quotation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ.P. 59(e);Zinkandv.Bro~478F.3d634, 637 (4thCir.
2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F .3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co.,
148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995).
Johnson's motion lacks merit and is denied.

II.
In sum, the court DENIES defendants' motions for attorneys' fees [D.E. 79, 88, 92],
DENIES Johnson's motion to alter or amend the judgment [D.E. 89], and GRANTS defendants'
motions to strike [D.E. 101--02, 115-17].
SO ORDERED. This 1~ day of Apri12019.

JAdEs c~EWR'm

United States District Judge

3