Berard v. State, Department of Health & Human Resources
Docket: No. CA 84 1325
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 24, 1986; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Dr. Michael Berard appeals a district court order that dismissed his complaint for attorney fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Dr. Berard initially applied for licensure as a psychologist in Louisiana on February 1, 1981, but was denied candidacy due to unmet requirements. Following guidance on alternative requirements, he received support from Dr. Laurence Siegel, leading to his approval as a candidate by the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. However, without prior notice, the Board rescinded his candidacy status, prompting Dr. Berard to file a lawsuit against the Board and its members, alleging violations of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The trial court remanded the case for a hearing after recognizing the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before rescission. Following settlement discussions, Dr. Berard was reinstated as a candidate, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice, although he reserved the right to seek attorney fees. The trial court denied this request, determining that the lawsuit was not an enforcement action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but rather an appeal under the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act. Dr. Berard's appeal now focuses on whether his action qualifies as one enforcing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and whether he qualifies as a prevailing party for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. If both conditions are met, he would be entitled to attorney fees.
Dr. Berard's lawsuit alleged that the rejection and subsequent rescission of his candidacy status infringed upon his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process and equal protection. He claimed the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failing to provide notice or a hearing, and used unlawful criteria not uniformly applied to other candidates. He further asserted that the defendants acted under Louisiana law and that their actions violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The suit was characterized as an original action rather than an appeal of an administrative decision, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief alongside compensatory damages for alleged constitutional violations.
The court addressed the issue of whether Dr. Berard qualified as a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Although the case was dismissed with prejudice following a settlement, Dr. Berard argued he should still be considered prevailing based on federal case law. The court noted that while a party can be deemed prevailing after a settlement without going to trial, Dr. Berard had not demonstrated actual violations of his constitutional rights nor entitlement to civil rights relief under § 1983. Citing Doe v. Busbee, the court emphasized that a plaintiff must achieve significant relief to be considered a prevailing party, which includes vindicating a civil right against the violator. The court also referenced Oldham v. Ehrlich, indicating that a plaintiff might be seen as prevailing if a discontinued policy would have been invalidated, but Dr. Berard failed to meet these criteria.
In Hanrahan v. Hampton, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the attorneys' fees act applies to interlocutory proceedings only if a party demonstrates entitlement to relief on the merits. The Court emphasized that an interlocutory award for attorney fees should not differ from fees incurred in dismissed suits, necessitating that a plaintiff must establish some entitlement to civil rights relief to be deemed a prevailing party. This standard prevents plaintiffs from recovering fees solely based on allegations without proving actual deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the present case, Dr. Berard's allegations of civil rights violations were not substantiated, and he only achieved limited success in restoring his candidacy status. The absence of the settlement agreement in the record further weakened his claim. Consequently, Dr. Berard’s request for attorney's fees was denied, and the trial judge's decision was affirmed, with costs assigned to the plaintiff-appellant.
