Bane Civil Rights Act, State Court Attorney Fee Awards

Whenever we receive phone calls concerning a civil rights action in state or federal court, the topic of attorney fees is usually discussed, both as recovering such fees or being awarded such fees, or paying such fees to the opposing party.

The possibility of an award of attorneys’ fees can be an important factor in convincing an attorney to represent a person in a civil lawsuit. The availability of attorneys’ fees will depend on the issues being raised in the case. 

As discussed in some of the articles linked below, there are laws that allow a court to award attorney’s fees to the winning party in a federal civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) suit.  A successful plaintiff who files a case (in either federal court or in state court) raising mixed federal and state claims may be awarded attorneys’ fees under these laws. 

Courts are not authorized to award attorneys’ fees in cases raising only state tort law claims that are primarily intended to win money damages for an individual person.  Consequently, if a person presents only state tort law claims (or wins only on state tort law claims), attorneys’ fees will not be awarded.  In such cases, the only incentive for a lawyer to take the case is likely to be an agreement that the plaintiff will pay the lawyer some portion of any money damages award. 

In contrast, a court can order losing defendants to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and other litigation costs in a case brought under the Bane Civil Rights Act.

The Bane Civil Rights Act is California’s own civil rights law.  It is set forth at Civil Code § 52.1.  Under the Bane Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff can sue for damages if the defendant, used threats of violence, intimidation or coercion to prevent the plaintiff from doing something they had the legal right to do or to force the plaintiff to do something that they were not legally required to do. Civil Code § 52.1; Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal. App.4th 968, 976-979, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 204 (upholding decision that unlawful arrest and beating of unresisting hand-cuffed man violated Bane Civil Rights Act); Shoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 947, 955-956, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (wrongful arrest and detention, without more, does not violate Bane Civil Rights Act); Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 820, 841-842, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 (allowing suit to proceed under civil rights act for unreasonable search and seizure).

A plaintiff in a “Bane Act” lawsuit does not need to show that the defendant was acting under color of law. Civil Code § 52.1(a). 

 

Most importantly, it appears that prison officials do not have immunity from lawsuits for money damages filed under the Bane Civil Rights Act. Serbe, Judge: Black inmate who contracted valley fever can sue prison, S.F. Daily Journal (Jul. 10, 2015). 

Finally, if a plaintiffs’ state court case results in injunctive relief vindicating important public rights, the court may award attorneys’ fees; this is sometimes called the “private attorney general” doctrine, or a “PAGA” case.  Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; see Woodland Hills Residents’ Assn. v. City Counsel of Los Angeles (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 917, 925, 154 Cal. Rptr. 503; Press v. Lucky Stores (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 311, 317, 193 Cal. Rptr. 900; see also Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 33, 141 Cal. Rptr. 315 (authorizing fee awards for constitutional claims).  Section 1021.5 does not authorize compensation for costs of litigation other than attorneys’ fees. Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 1142, 1156-1157, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 81.  Greg Hill from our office has been awarded attorney fees in such a case.

Since such fees are not subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), they may be more generous than fees awarded on federal civil rights claims.  However, attorneys’ fees cannot be granted if the primary effect of a lawsuit is to benefit the plaintiff’s personal economic interests. Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 629, 637, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632. 

In deciding whether to award a plaintiff attorney fees, a judge will consider whether the case resulted in enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, whether it conferred a significant benefit on a large group of people, and whether there was a need for the plaintiff to take on the burden of enforcing that right. City of Hawaiian Gardens v. City of Long Beach (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1100, 1112, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 134; Woodland Hills Resident Assn. v. City Counsel of Los Angeles (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 917, 934-935, 154 Cal. Rptr. 503.

Attorneys’ fees are appropriate when the case benefits people in prison and the general public. In re Head (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 223, 228, 228 Cal. Rptr. 184; Inmates of the Sybil Brand Institute for Women v. County of Los Angeles (1982) 130 Cal. App.3d 89, 112, 181 Cal. Rptr. 599.

While this article appears on our website, it would be a mistake to credit us with most of its contents.  Credit instead should be given to the Prison Law Office in Folsom, California because of their wonderful treatise, California Prison and Parole Law Handbook, the contents of which are recited in this article.  Thank you, Prison Law Office!