## Facts

- Patients involuntarily confined in a Missouri state hospital’s forensic unit brought a federal civil-rights action against hospital officials challenging treatment and conditions.
- After trial, the district court found constitutional violations in five of six general areas and granted relief to plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as prevailing parties.
- The district court awarded fees without subtracting hours spent on unsuccessful claims, reasoning that the overall relief warranted a reasonable fee.
- The court of appeals affirmed the fee award.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address how to calculate a reasonable § 1988 fee when plaintiffs prevail on some, but not all, claims.

## Issues

1. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, how should a court determine a reasonable attorney’s fee when a prevailing plaintiff succeeds on some, but not all, claims?
2. When must hours spent on unsuccessful claims be excluded from the fee calculation?
3. How should the fee be adjusted to reflect the plaintiff’s degree of success?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
- The Court held the district court did not properly consider the relationship between the degree of success and the amount of the fee award.
- The Court directed the lower court to determine whether any unsuccessful claims were unrelated to the successful claims and to exclude hours devoted to any such unrelated claims.
- The Court also directed the lower court to consider whether the overall results reflected limited success requiring a reduction even where claims were related.

## Legal Principles

- A reasonable fee under § 1988 generally begins with the “lodestar”: reasonable hours expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
- The degree of success obtained is the most important factor in setting the amount of a fee award.
- Hours spent on unsuccessful claims that are distinctly different and unrelated to successful claims (different facts and legal theories) should be excluded.
- Where claims share a common core of facts or related legal theories, the court should not reduce fees merely because every contention was not accepted; the focus is the significance of the overall relief in relation to the hours reasonably expended.
- If the plaintiff achieves only limited success, the court must award only fees reasonable in relation to the results obtained; the court may either identify and eliminate specific hours or apply an overall reduction.
- The district court has discretion in fee-setting but must provide a concise, clear explanation sufficient for appellate review and to show the award is tied to the results obtained.

## Conclusion

The Court required § 1988 fee awards to start from the lodestar, exclude time spent on unrelated unsuccessful claims, and then be adjusted as needed to reflect the plaintiff’s overall success; because the lower courts did not adequately connect the fee to the results obtained, the fee judgment was vacated and remanded for recalculation.


Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983)