Mitchell v. Sheboygan County Detention Center et al

Filing 169

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/21/2017: DENYING without prejudice 159 Defendants Nurses Brenda, Lisa, Nick, and Tracy's Motion for Attorney's Fees; and DENYING without prejudice 162 Defendant Dr. Karen Butler's Motion for Attorney's Fees. These Defendants may file renewed motions for attorney's fees and costs within 14 days. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kevin Brian Mitchell at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KEVIN BRIAN MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-CV-1520-JPS

MARK RICHTER, SERGEANT FENN,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HANSEN,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER IVERSON,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KRUEGER,
DEPUTY WALTER, DR. KAREN BUTLER,
NURSE TRACY, NURSE BRENDA,
NURSE LISA, NURSE NICK, and
CAPTAIN BRINKMAN,

ORDER

Defendants.

On February 27, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment to all
Defendants as to each of Plaintiff’s claims. (Docket #157). After the Court
entered judgment in their favor, several of the Defendants moved for awards
of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Docket #159 and #162). Mitchell did
not file any response to these motions. Despite this, the Court must deny the
motions without prejudice at this time. Without determining whether
Defendants are entitled to an award of fees, or what a reasonable fee would
ultimately be, the Court notes that Defendants’ evidentiary submissions fall
woefully short of what is required to enable to the Court to evaluate the fee
requests.
To calculate a reasonable attorney’s fee, the district court generally
begins by computing a “lodestar”: the product of the hours reasonably
expended on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Montanez v.
Simon, 755 F.3d 547, 553 (7th Cir. 2014). A reasonable hourly rate for lodestar

purposes is the attorney’s “market rate,” or “the rate that lawyers of similar
ability and experience in their community normally charge their paying
clients for the type of work in question.” Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,
175 F.3d 544, 555 (7th Cir. 1999) (quotations and citations omitted). Although
the lodestar yields a presumptively reasonable fee, the court may adjust the
fee based on factors not included in the computation. Montanez, 755 F.3d at
553.
Defendants provide precious little in the way of supporting evidence
for their requested awards. They submitted affidavits from their attorneys
that contain conclusory averments regarding the number of hours expended
in total by all participating employees of the law firm, both attorneys and
paralegals, and the fees that resulted from these hours. In the nurse
Defendants’ attorney’s affidavit, there is no indication as to what portions of
the claimed hours were expended by which individuals. (Docket #160 ¶ 2),
while Dr. Butler’s attorney separates out the attorney and paralegal time,
(Docket #163 ¶ 4).
Yet neither affidavit details anyone’s billing rates, compares those
rates to prevailing rates for similar services in the market, or describes with
any precision the nature of the tasks that resulted in the time expended. These
are details typically required in attorney’s fee requests. See Johnson v. GDF,
Inc., 668 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that evidence for an attorney’s
or paralegal’s reasonable rate is normally derived from evidence regarding
his actual billing rate and rates charged by similar practitioners in the
community); Six Star Holdings, LLC v. City of Milwaukee, No. 10–C–0893, 2015
WL 5821441, at *5–6 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 5, 2015) (examining reasonableness of
hours claimed based on review of billing records submitted). The Supreme
Court has made clear that it is the burden of the party seeking fees to
Page 2 of 3

“produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own
affidavits—that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the
community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). Without such
evidence, the Court is unable to determine what a reasonable rate should be
or whether the hours claimed were reasonable and necessary in this case.
Yet rather than deny an award of fees outright, the Court will instead
deny the present motions without prejudice. Defendants may, if they choose,
submit the motions a second time. If they do so, they should support their fee
requests with appropriate documentation and evidence. Any such motion
must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants nurses Brenda, Lisa, Nick, and
Tracy’s motion for attorney’s fees (Docket #159) be and the same is hereby
DENIED without prejudice;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Dr. Karen Butler’s
motion for attorney’s fees (Docket #162) be and the same is hereby DENIED
without prejudice; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these Defendants may file renewed
motions for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d) no later than fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 21st day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3