Dover v. Rose

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that Roger Dover was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Although the district court found that Dover's due process rights had been violated by an 11-month delay in prisoner classification, he received no damages or other relief, and his lawsuit was not shown to have caused changes in the classification system. The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff is not a prevailing party under § 1988 unless he establishes entitlement to some form of relief on the merits of a substantial claim. A finding of a constitutional violation, without an award of damages or other effective relief, is insufficient.
2. Dover did not qualify as a prevailing party under the catalyst theory because he failed to show that his lawsuit caused the defendant to make significant changes in the prison classification process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff who obtains a finding of a constitutional violation but receives no damages or other judicially enforceable relief is a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2. Whether Dover's lawsuit qualified under the catalyst theory because it allegedly caused changes in the prison classification process.

Disposition

affirmed