Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
78 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 30 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stephen Ward v. Harold Copenhaver, et al. (ared, 2025-10-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephen Ward v. Harold Copenhaver, et al.
E.D. Ark. · 2025 · confidence medium
In this instance, then, the Court will “temper justice with understanding” and “mercy,” decline to sanction anyone for any past Rule 26(f) violation, and give all concerned “a second opportunity to comply with the discovery rules,” 8B WRIGHT & MILLER, supra, § 2284 at 445, 467 (footnote omitted). accord McDermott v. Royal, 123 F. App’x 241 , 242 n.3 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); White v. Armontrout, 29 F.3d 357, 361 (8th Cir. 1994); Coleman v. Turner, 838 F.2d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Starks v. St. Louis County
E.D. Mo. · 2024 · confidence medium
Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 232-33, 235 (1964); Alexander v. Nat’l Farmers Org., 696 F.2d 1210 , 1212 (8th Cir. 1982); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Austell v. City of Pagedale
E.D. Mo. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 , 435 (1991); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979) (determining that a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ); Enloe v. Smith, No. 2:22-cv-00019-SEP, 2022 WL 1802155 , at *5 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Enloe v. Smith
E.D. Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 , 435 (1991) (stating “that a pro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to attorney’s fees” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979) (determining that a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ); Simon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 5109543 , at *5 (D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bohner v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
E.D. Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 232-33, 235 (1964); Alexander v. National Farmers Org., 696 F.2d 1210 , 1212 (8th Cir. 1982); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cramer v. Equifax Information Services,LLC
E.D. Mo. · 2020 · confidence medium
Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 232-33, 235 (1964); Alexander v. National Farmers Org., 696 F.2d 1210 , 1212 (8th Cir. 1982); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grover v. Wadsworth (2×)
Idaho · 2009 · confidence medium
Under this interpretation, an attorney fee ‘presupposes a relationship of attorney and client.’ ” Swanson & Setzke, Chtd., 116 Idaho at 200 , 774 P.2d at 910 (quoting Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough v. Dawson
Utah · 1996 · confidence medium
The retainer agreement states that the client is responsible for “attorneys’ fees incurred in the enforcement of this agreement.” It is by no means self-evident that the time a lawyer spends on his own case represents fees “incurred.” In Swanson & Setzke, Chtd. v. Henning, 116 Idaho 199 , 774 P.2d 909, 910 (Ct.App.1989), the Idaho court interpreted “attorney fee” as denoting “a monetary obligation (a fee) paid or owed from one person (a client) to another person who has provided legal representation (an attorney).” We agree that under such an interpretation, “an attorney’…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donahue v. Thomas (2×)
D.C. · 1992 · confidence medium
Corp., 614 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 923 , 100 S.Ct. 3016 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1980); Davis v. Parratt, supra note 12, 608 F.2d 717 ; Burke v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 559 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir.1977), affg., 432 F.Supp. 251 (D.Kan.1976); Hannon v. Security Nat'l Bank, 537 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Swanson & Setzke, Chtd. v. Henning
Idaho Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Wood
D. Minnesota · 1989 · confidence medium
Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Coleman v. Turner
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Betty J. Coleman and Doyle J. Williams v. William Turner, Warden, Renz Farm, Betty J. Coleman and Doyle J. Williams v. Rose Ballas, Mickie Ross, William Turner and Diane Garber
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lev v. Lev
Conn. App. Ct. · 1987 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 1116 (1980); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979); Hannon v. Security National Bank, 537 F.2d 327, 328-29 (9th Cir. 1976); Atherton v. Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal. App. 3d 433, 436-37 , 222 Cal. Rptr. 56 (1986); Parquit Corporation v. Ross, 273 Or. 900, 902 , 543 P.2d 1070 (1975); note, “Pro Se Can You Sue?
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank Gonzalez v. William E. Kangas
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105, 1120 (CA7 1983) (prisoner action challenging constitutionality of disciplinary procedures), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1282 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); Turman v. Tuttle, 711 F.2d 148, 149 (CA10 1983) (prisoner action claiming due process, equal protection violations); Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311, 312-13 (CA3 1982) (prisoner action claiming due process violations); Wright v. Crowell, 674 F.2d 521, 522 (CA6 1982) (per curiam) (prisoner action claiming deprivation of right to vote); Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (CA5 1981) (emp…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frisch v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1986 · confidence medium
Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311, 312-313 (3d Cir. 1982); Wright v. Crowell, 674 F.2d 521, 522 (6th Cir. 1982); Cofield v. Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986 , 987-988 (5th Cir. 1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170, 171 (1st Cir. 1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979); Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F. Supp. 877, 878-880 (W.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence v. Staats
D.D.C. · 1984 · confidence medium
Courts from other Circuits, however, have overwhelmingly concluded that pro se plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney fees under § 1988, and by implication under § 2000e-5(k). 3 Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311, 312-13 (3d Cir.1982); Wright v. Cromwell, 674 F.2d 521, 522 (6th Cir.1982); Cofield v. *1379 Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir.1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170, 171 (1st Cir.1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979); Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F.Supp. 877, 878-80 (W.D.Pa.1980), aff 'd, 694 F.2d 941 (3d Cir.1982); Rheuark v. Shaw, 477 F.Supp. 897, 928 (N.D.Tex.197…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Scholl v. Anselmi
Wyo. · 1982 · confidence medium
The district court properly denied Davis’ application for attorney fees.” Davis v. Parratt, supra, at 718.
discussed Cited "see" Leventhal v. Schaffer
N.D. Iowa · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coleman v. Turner, 838 F.2d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir.1988) (“Because appellants were not represented by counsel, they are not entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 .” (citing Davis v. Parrott, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979))).
cited Cited "see" Robin C. McDermott v. Thomas Dean Royal
8th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979); see also Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435, 111 S.Ct. 1435 , 113 L.Ed.2d 486 (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Richard B. Kay v. Bremer Ehrler, and the Kentucky Board of Elections (2×)
6th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979) (per curiam). 16 However, courts have seen quite a different issue when the pro se civil rights plaintiff was also an attorney.
cited Cited "see" Pitts v. Vaughn
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979); Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F.Supp. 877, 879 (W.D.Pa.1980). 10 Recently, in Cunningham v. F. B.
cited Cited "see" Pitts v. Vaughn
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979); Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F.Supp. 877, 879 (W.D.Pa.1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Emergency Beacon Corp.
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Davis v. Parratt, supra. Somewhere in between are those courts which have allowed attorney’s fee awards pursuant to statutory authorization, for a litigant represented by an attorney who does not charge the litigant for services rendered.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cliff Davis
v.
Robert F. Parratt, Warden of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex Lieutenant Jerry Wright, Officer at Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
79-1496.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 30, 1979.
608 F.2d 717
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

608 F.2d 717

Cliff DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
Robert F. PARRATT, Warden of Nebraska Penal and Correctional
Complex; Lieutenant Jerry Wright, Officer at
Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex,
Appellees.

No. 79-1496.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 1979.
Decided Oct. 30, 1979.

Cliff Davis, pro se.

Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen. and Mel Kammerlohr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, Neb., on brief for appellees.

Before LAY, BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~717]1

Cliff Davis, proceeding pro se, appeals from a district court order denying him attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and awarding him partial indemnification for his litigation expenses. We affirm.

2

In September 1976 Davis filed a pro se complaint in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officers of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. His case was consolidated for trial with similar Section 1983 suits brought by Antonio Laravie and Arthur Miller. Laravie and Miller requested and received appointment of counsel; Davis refused appointment of counsel.

3

The thrust of plaintiffs' complaint was that the inmate legal library was inadequate and that plaintiffs had been denied reasonable access to the library. Pursuant to joint stipulations, the district court entered orders: (1) requiring the defendants to take certain steps to improve the library and retaining jurisdiction to ensure compliance; and (2) dismissing the remaining issue with prejudice. Miller applied for and received attorney fees. Davis was awarded $351.65 as costs but was denied attorney fees.

4

Davis argues: (1) he is entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because he is a trained paralegal; and (2) he is entitled to full reimbursement for his expenses in the amount of $1,190.95.

5

Davis is not represented by counsel on appeal and was not represented by counsel in the district court. He argues that under Section 1988 he is entitled to receive paralegal compensation at the rate of $25.00 per hour for his work in preparing his case. He further contends that the denial of attorney fees to pro se litigants contravenes the purpose of that statute.

6

The legislative history of Section 1988 reveals that its purpose is not to compensate pro se litigants, but to provide counsel fees to prevailing parties in order to give private citizens a meaningful opportunity to vindicate their rights:

7

In many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. If private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, . . . (they) must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.

8

S.Rep.No.49-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, Reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 5908, 5910. See Morrow v. Dillard, 580 F.2d 1284, 1299 (5th Cir. 1978); Sargeant v. Sharp, 579 F.2d 645, 648-49 (1st Cir. 1978); See also Pickett v. Milam, 579 F.2d 1118, 1121 (8th Cir. 1978); Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens for Community Action, 558 F.2d 861, 870-71 (8th Cir. 1977). This section presupposes a relationship of attorney and client that is lacking in the instant case. The district court properly denied Davis' application for attorney fees.

9

Davis also contends that the amount he was awarded for costs is inadequate. The district court award is fully within its discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 232, 85 S.Ct. 411, 13 L.Ed.2d 248 (1964); Linneman Construction Inc. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Inc., 504 F.2d 1365, 1370 (8th Cir. 1974); First National Bank v. Dunham, 471 F.2d 712, 713 (8th Cir. 1973); See also 6 Moore's Federal Practice P 54.70(5) (2d ed. 1976).

[*~718]10

The judgment is affirmed.