Case: Drew v. Brierton

1:73-02911 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Nov. 15, 1973

Closed Date: Jan. 16, 1978

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

An inmate at the Illinois Correctional Institution brought a pro se section 1983 suit against prison officials alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. An attorney was appointed for the inmate, and the complaint was amended to seek relief for a class of all current and former inmates who had been subjected to the allegedly unlawful searches of their cells. On April 22, 1977, the matter was settled with entry of a consent decree. The decree enjoined defendants to observe and enforc…

An inmate at the Illinois Correctional Institution brought a pro se section 1983 suit against prison officials alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. An attorney was appointed for the inmate, and the complaint was amended to seek relief for a class of all current and former inmates who had been subjected to the allegedly unlawful searches of their cells.

On April 22, 1977, the matter was settled with entry of a consent decree. The decree enjoined defendants to observe and enforce inmates' Fourth Amendment rights, to observe and enforce provisions of Administrative Regulation 401 of the Department of Corrections, and to provide each inmate whose cell had been searched the identity of the officer who conducted the search and a list of any seized items.

In this case, plaintiffs' attorney petitioned for an award of attorneys' fees in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants contended that the plaintiff class was not a prevailing party under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 because the relief obtained was de minimus. In addition, the defendant argued that the court should use it's discretion to prevent funds for prisoner rehabilitation from being used for attorneys' fees, that the requested rate of compensation was too high, and that plaintiffs' counsel should not be compensated for work she did while affiliated with a large Chicago law firm.

The district court (Judge Marshall) held that the plaintiff class was the prevailing party despite no actual finding or admission by the defendants that inmates' Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Likewise, the court held that the remedy was not de minimus, but a substantial protection of the inmates' Fourth Amendment rights. The court did exclude from its award hours plaintiffs' counsel worked while associated with a Chicago law firm whose practice was not to accept fee awards in similar cases, but found the remaining time devoted to the case while in private practice and the rate claimed to be reasonable. The final judgment was an award of $7,900.00 in attorneys fees and $183.21 in out-of-pocket expenses for a total of $8,083.21. Drew v. Brierton, 443 F.Supp 389 (N.D. Ill. 1978).

The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the most recent court opinion, dated January 16, 1978.

Summary Authors

Sherrie Waldrup (8/29/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Marshall, Prentice Henry (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Jenkins, Martha M. (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

McKoski, Raymond (Illinois)

Scott, William J. (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Marshall, Prentice Henry (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:73-02911

Memorandum Decision

Jan. 16, 1978

Jan. 16, 1978

Order/Opinion

443 F.Supp. 443

Docket

Last updated March 31, 2024, 3:18 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 15, 1973

Closing Date: Jan. 16, 1978

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

inmates at the Illinois Correctional Institution

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Stateville Correctional Center (Stateville), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1977 - None

Issues

General:

Search policies

Type of Facility:

Government-run