42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Civil Rights

On November 25, 2008, the Supreme Court will consider whether to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Township, 519 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008), a decision we analyzed here. The petition expressly asks the Court to overrule Williamson County.  We’ve detailed the kafkaesque nature of the Williamson…

The most easily recognizable equal protection claim is one in which the plaintiff claims membership in a protected group, and some form of discrimination against the class. Another type of equal protection claim is the “class of one” claim under Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curiam), where the Court…

In Shanks v. Byrd, No. 06-35665 (Aug. 27, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that a municipality’s alleged failure to enforce its zoning laws was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Developers who convert homes into student residents apparently did not obtain all of the appropriate permits from Spokane, Washington to remodel a portion…

In Moreno v. City of Sacramento, No. 06-15021 (9th Cir. July 28, 2008), the Ninth Circuit clarified the rules for calculating “prevailing party” attorneys fees in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.  The district court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, and reduced both the number of hours the plaintiff’s attorney claimed, and…

A Lahaina business owner has sued the County of Maui in federal court in Honolulu.  In Goo v. County of Maui, CV 08-00172 DAE (filed Apr. 17, 2008), the Complaint alleges the County and Planning Department officials drove the International Open Market Place, a gift and craft fair, out of business by deliberately favoring…

If you picked up and read a copy of Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Township, No. 07-1370 (Mar. 13, 2008), an opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, without having read the briefs of the parties and the decision of the court below, you might not see anything terribly…

A must-read decision today from the Ninth Circuit — Crown Point Development, Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, No. 06-35189 (Nov. 1, 2007).  The court clarified a point that has been a long time coming: a property owner may assert claims under both the Takings and the Due Process Clauses.  In other words, land…

The US Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion in Sole v. Wyner (No. 06-531) (docket listing here), a case involving whether a party who obtains a preliminary injunction — but ultimately loses the case on the merits — can be a “prevailing party” entitled to civil rights attorneys fees.  The Court, in an…

Just in case you were wondering whether Hawaii water rights issues were matters of federal or state law, the Hawaii Supreme Court has provided the answer. 

In Maui Tomorrow v. State of Hawaii, 110 Haw. 234, 131 P.3d 517 (Apr. 5, 2006), the court held that prevailing on a state law water rights claim in state court does not entitle the victor to federal civil rights attorneys fees. 

That conclusion may seem a touch obvious, one might think, but despite a rather clever and “tenuous” argument by the party seeking to fee-shift, the court correctly determined that issues of water rights and the common law public trust were matters of state law.  Disclosure: I represented the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, one of the prevailing parties in this appeal.

The appeal arose when the owner of a private water transport system on Maui sought a long term lease from the State Board of Land and Natural Resources, allowing the use of surface water originating in state-owned land.  Several individuals and organizations intervened in the administrative process, alleging that the lease would interfere with their preexisting water rights, rights as Native Hawaiians, and rights under Hawaii’s public trust in water, and that before entering into a lease, the agency must undertake an environmental assessment under the  Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 343.

The agency rejected the claims, and the intervenors appealed to state court, adding a claim for due process violations.  The trial court ruled against the intervenors and in favor of the state on the due process claims, for the intervenors on the EA and public trust claims, and remanded the case back to the agency.  After judgment was entered, the intervenors sought nearly a quarter of a million dollars in attorneys fee under the federal fee-shifting statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.  That statute allows a party who prevails on a federal civil rights claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983) to make the loser pay attorneys fees.  The trial court denied the motion and the intervenors appealed.

The Supreme Court held that despite characterizing their water rights and public trust claims as claims under the law admitting Hawaii as the 50th state (the Admission Act), the claims made by the intervenors were, in reality, arguments under state law. The court compared the claims actually made by the intervenors to the claims theintervenors said they made, and found no federal civil rights claim was present, much less a federal claim on which the intervenors prevailed.  The court characterized the request for attorneys fees as “tenuous,”but refused to impose Rule 11 sanctions for a frivolous argument.

    
Continue Reading ▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Hawaii Water Law is Not a Federal Case