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
Quick Summary

Section 1988 does not authorize attorney fee awards to pro se litigants because the statute presupposes a relationship of attorney and client.

A pro se prisoner who prevails in a civil rights suit seeks attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, arguing his paralegal work warrants compensation. The court examines whether the statute permits fee awards to self-represented litigants. The court applies the rule that Section 1988 presupposes a relationship of attorney and client, which is absent when a party proceeds pro se. The court affirms the district court's denial of attorney fees, holding that the statute's purpose is to enable citizens to hire counsel, not to compensate self-representation, and finds no abuse of discretion in the award of partial costs.

78 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 30 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ward, No. 3:22-cv-00250 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 20, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 718 Determining entitlement to attorneys' fees for pro se litigants23 citing cases“presupposes a relationship of attorney and client”3 citing courts quote it · 22 listed here
  • Ward, No. 3:22-cv-00250 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 20, 2025).
    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 WRIG…
  • Starks v. St. Louis Cnty., No. 4:21-cv-00435 (E.D. Mo. June 25, 2024).
    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).
  • Austell v. City of Pagedale, No. 4:22-cv-01006 (E.D. Mo. July 31, 2023).
    (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, 2022 WL 1802155 (E.D. Mo. June 2, 2022).
    (determining that a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  • Bohner v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 4:19-cv-02581, 2022 WL 970872 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2022).
    Farmer v. Arabian Am. 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).
  • Cramer v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 4:18-cv-01078, 2020 WL 887996 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 24, 2020).
    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).
  • Grover v. Wadsworth, 205 P.3d 1196 (Idaho 2009).published 2 cites
    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)).
  • Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough v. Dawson, 923 P.2d 1366 (Utah 1996).published
    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 S…
  • Swanson & Setzke, Chtd. v. Henning, 774 P.2d 909 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989).published
    Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
  • Bailey v. Wood, 708 F. Supp. 249 (D. Minn. 1989).published
    Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
Show 12 more citing cases
  • Coleman v. Turner, 838 F.2d 1004 (8th Cir. 1988).published
    Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
  • Betty J. Coleman & Doyle J. Williams v. William Turner, Warden, Renz Farm, Betty J. Coleman & Doyle J. Williams v. Rose Ballas, Mickie Ross, William Turner & Diane Garber, 838 F.2d 1004 (8th Cir. 1988).published
    Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979).
  • Lev v. Lev, 524 A.2d 674 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).published
    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); Par…
  • Frank Gonzalez v. William E. Kangas, 814 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987).published
    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 (C…
  • Frisch v. Comm'r, 87 T.C. 838 (T.C. 1986).published
    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, 6…
  • Lawrence v. Staats, 586 F. Supp. 1375 (D.D.C. 1984).published
    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…
  • State ex rel. Scholl v. Anselmi, 640 P.2d 746 (Wyo. 1982).published
    The district court properly denied Davis’ application for attorney fees.” Davis v. Parratt, supra, at 718.
  • Leventhal v. Schaffer, 743 F. Supp. 2d 990 (N.D. Iowa 2010).published
    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))).
  • Robin C. McDermott v. Thomas Dean Royal, 123 F. App'x 241 (8th Cir. 2004).unpublished
    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).
  • Richard B. Kay v. Bremer Ehrler, 900 F.2d 967 (6th Cir. 1990).published 2 cites
    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.
  • Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311 (3d Cir. 1982).published 4 cites
    See Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170 (1st Cir. 1981); Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979).
  • Levine v. Heffernan, 691 F. Supp. 173 (W.D. Wis. 1988).published
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
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.
Published opinion
608 F.2d 717
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10864
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.

[*~717–719]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:

[*~718–719]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).

10

The judgment is affirmed.