Kentucky v. Graham

Supreme Court of the United States · Torts

TortsSection 1983Attorney's feesOfficial-capacity vs personal-capacity suitsEleventh Amendment42 U.S.C. § 198842 U.S.C. § 1983attorney's fees

Facts

Respondents alleged that police officers entered a home without a warrant, beat and terrorized the occupants, illegally searched them, and falsely arrested them. Their complaint sought only money damages and named individual local and state officers, local governmental entities, Commissioner Brandenburgh both individually and as commissioner, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky only for possible attorney's fees. The District Court dismissed the Commonwealth as a party under the Eleventh Amendment, and the Commonwealth refused to defend the individual defendants. After the merits case settled, respondents sought fees from the Commonwealth alone under § 1988.

Issue

Does 42 U.S.C. § 1988 permit attorney's fees to be recovered from a governmental entity when the plaintiff sued government employees only in their personal capacities for damages and prevailed? More specifically, can the Commonwealth be made liable for fees when no merits relief could be awarded against it in federal court?

Rule

Section 1988 ties attorney's fee liability to liability on the merits. A prevailing plaintiff may recover fees from the party legally responsible for relief on the merits, but not from another party or nonparty; therefore, a governmental entity cannot be held liable for § 1988 fees when the plaintiff prevailed only in a personal-capacity action against government officials and the entity had no merits liability.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Ohio, Tessa Moreno sued state prison guard Dylan Pike under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Pike personally beat her during a cell transfer. She sought damages only from Pike in his individual capacity, won a jury verdict, and then moved for attorney's fees under § 1988 against the State of Ohio because Pike acted within the scope of his job.

Should the court award § 1988 fees against the State?

Explanation. Section 1988 ties fee liability to the party legally responsible for relief on the merits. A personal-capacity suit imposes liability on the individual official, not the governmental entity, and the entity cannot be made to pay fees on a respondeat superior theory merely because its employee lost. The key defect is lack of merits liability by the State, not simply pleading form. (Derived from Kentucky v. Graham (n.d.).)