Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
April 6, 1994
No. 93-1439
SUSAN WARREN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
CITY OF LYNN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
____________________
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Pettine,* Senior District Judge.
_____________________
____________________
Austin M. Joyce with whom Edward P. Reardon
_________________
___________________
Akerson were on brief for appellants.
and Michael
________
_______
Geraldine S. Hines with
__________________
appellees.
____________________
____________________
____________________
*Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
aftermath
of a lawsuit brought
members
of the Lynn
the city
of Lynn to
family
On that evening, a
convenience
at gunpoint.
following up
store in
on
East
Lynn was
this robbery,
defendant
robbed
members of
the
In
Lynn
members, engaged in
persons,
and
an illegal
search of their
falsely imprisoned
Plaintiffs were
not prosecuted
at
least
home and
one family
in connection with
their
member.
the robbery,
disorderly
of
Lynn
and
some
defendants'
verdicts.
compensatory
damages
Plaintiffs sought
costs
awarded
an award of
of $4,094.71.
dozen
Punitive
were
The
guilty of various
other
officers
damages
had
in the
amount
$85,566.25 in
court awarded
received
been
waived;
of
$2,500.
counsel fees,
costs and
The
and
$50,000 for
counsel fees.
Appellants challenge the court's
-2-
Before we can
we
1. The facts.
_________
1991.
On July
3, 1991,
noting a
we
motion
and
the
issued an
number of
potentially fatal
the pendency of
lack of
order to
an additional
separate
show
on June 14,
documents
cause why
of
this appeal
panel decision
in Fiore
_____
51
Cir.
(1st
1991),
withdrawn
_________
and
___
superseded
__________
by
__
Fiore
_____
v.
Washington County Community Health Center, 960 F.2d 229 (1st Cir.
_________________________________________
1992)
the
question of how
be applied
court denied
the remaining
1991, the
post-judgment motion.
On
basic position
originally adopted by
"meticulous compliance"
with
when a party
the
separate
fails to pursue
the panel,
document
an appeal
within three months of the court's last order in the case, waiver
____________________
-3-
of
the separate
by
be inferred.
letters
and
960
over two
conversations,
to
obtain
separate
forthcoming.
Not
until October 8, 1992, fifteen and one half months after the last
order in the case was
and fifteen
a motion
On March 25, 1993, the district court allowed the motion for
entry
of judgment,
requesting
separate
that
On April
order, denied
post-trial
orders
the motion
be entered
on
appellants filed a
been entered
a margin
the court's
documents.
second appeal.
the
but, in
post-judgment motion in
We noted that
docket sheet,
be
deemed
requirement.
a waiver
of
application
Upon receipt
of the
separate
of appellants' response,
document
we allowed
Discussion.
__________
we held that
post-judgment motions.
Not
only
did
conclude
that
the
-4-
58 and Rule
court
to run."
reaffirmed the
could
not
sleep
indefinitely, but,
960 F.2d at
clear holding
on
their
of the
rights
to
of the
233.
panel
The
time
en banc
__ ____
that parties
separate
documents
must take
also
separate
of judgment, or waive
document requirement.
The
stated:
If we were to hold without qualification that a
judgment is not final until the court issues a separate
document, we would open up the possibility that long
court
waited over
and en banc
__ ____
the en
__
banc
____
2At oral argument, when questioned about this six month delay,
appellants' counsel replied: "I hadn't read the en banc Fiore
__ ____ _____
decision. At that time, we didn't realize that there was a three
month period until it was brought to our attention by the
plaintiffs . . .
shortly before we filed the motion."
They
further stated that "other than not knowing" of the en banc
__ ____
decision in Fiore, there were no special circumstances excusing
_____
-5-
action by
oral
inadvertence
excuse
by
and letter
the court
counsel from
his
requests.
short
of
duty of
But
inattention
active misleading
diligence.
This
or
cannot
is why
we
jurisdiction.
No manifest injustice
_____________________
We add that this
defeating justice.
case is not
an example of a
We have considered
technicality
appellants' arguments on
claim that
plaintiffs
failed under
were
Farrar v.
______
not prevailing
Hobby, 113
_____
S. Ct.
parties
566, 573
(1992), in which the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who wins
nominal damages is
a prevailing
party under 42
U.S.C.
1988.
Meaningful
awards,
which
"the
constitutional
court
rights
____________________
may
in
consider
addition
to the
the
of case
vindication
amount
of
of
damages
the delay between the time that decision was issued on March 30,
1992, and the filing of their motion with the district court on
October 8, 1992.
-6-
recovered."
Riverside
_________
v.
Rivera,
______
477
U.S. 561,
585
(1986)
won a
$1,000
in
cannot
of
Lewis v.
_____
compel
discretion here.
that
awarded
situation of
that
fees to
a plaintiff
Kendrick, 944
________
finding
that the
In Lewis,
_____
here.
More
everything,"
id.
___
at 955,
F.2d
949 (1st
district
who had
in
court
abused its
was less
than half
contrast
Cir. 1991),
that
there
to
the
court felt
or largely in
had been
extreme
claim
should have
that
been granted
judgments
rests on
notwithstanding
the
the
argument that
Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial
or
class,
coercion to satisfy
ordered
political handbills,
N.E.2d
1128, 1130,
however, while
has
found
plaintiff to
Court,
stop
sufficient
intimidation
a uniformed security
soliciting
or
officer
and distributing
his
Mass. 819,
823
(1985), and
where
an
Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 502 N.E.2d 1375, 1378, 399 Mass.
_______________________________
93,
the
plaintiffs
entitled.
See
___
not
to
exercise
Batchelder, 473
__________
to
N.E.2d at
which
1131;
they
were
Redgrave, 502
________
N.E.2d at 1379.
When
in this case
-- the policemen's
incarcerations,
and
we can understand
search
based
beatings, the
on
perjurious
under instructions
the
meaning
particularly in
of
the
Massachusetts
Civil
Rights
Act,
-8-