In 1981, patients at a treatment center for sexually dangerous persons filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs asked the court to make the defendants comply with policies and procedures that had been adopted by the treatment center following settlement of earlier litigation.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Joseph L. Tauro) ordered the defendants to comply with revised policies and procedures, and both parties appealed the court's decision. On December 31, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a per curiam opinion vacating the district court's order and remanding the case back to the district court because the order had been entered without evidentiary hearing or articulated findings of fact or conclusions of law. Pearson v. Fair, 808 F.2d 163 (1st Cir. 1986).

On remand, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge A. David Mazzone) entered a judgment for the defendants, but awarded the plaintiffs a fraction of their requested attorneys' fees. Both parties appealed the decision. On June 3, 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Judge Ronald R. Lagueux) affirmed the lower court's decision on the merits but vacated the lower court's decision to award attorneys' fees, remanding to allow the district court to clarify how it arrived at the fee award. Pearson v. Fair, 935 F.2d 401 (1st Cir. 1991).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Mazzone) again granted a limited award of attorneys' fees. On November 24, 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Judge Juan R. Torruella) ruled that inmates would be awarded 15% of the requested attorneys' fees. Pearson v. Fair, 980 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1992). We have no further information on the proceedings of this case.

Kristen Sagar - 03/13/2006


compress summary