## Facts

- Boris Raishevich, a photographer, amassed a long-term collection of cannabis-plant photographic transparencies.
- In November 1993, New York State Police arrested Raishevich and seized property from his home, including 347 transparencies.
- Despite Raishevich’s requests for their return, the transparencies were destroyed by Charles Foster, a New York State Police evidence custodian.
- Raishevich sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for compensatory damages and sought attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- Foster conceded liability; the district court held a bench trial limited to damages.
- After hearing conflicting proof of value and potential licensing/publication income, the district court valued the transparencies and projected limited future uses, initially awarding $24,000 after increasing an estimated $12,000 to account for uncertainty caused by the destruction.
- On Foster’s post-trial motion, the district court reduced damages to $12,000, concluding it had improperly increased the award after already using a permissive estimation approach.
- The district court denied Raishevich’s § 1988 fee motion, finding “special circumstances” based largely on Raishevich’s refusal to accept a settlement amount suggested by the judge during a settlement conference.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by reducing compensatory damages from $24,000 to $12,000 after concluding it had over-applied flexibility in estimating damages where defendant’s conduct impeded proof.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying § 1988 attorneys’ fees on “special circumstances” grounds based solely on the plaintiff’s rejection of a settlement figure suggested by the court rather than offered by the defendant.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the amended judgment reducing compensatory damages to $12,000.
- The Second Circuit vacated the order denying attorneys’ fees and remanded for reconsideration.
- The court treated Raishevich as a prevailing party because he obtained a merits-based damages judgment after liability was conceded.
- The court held the district court exceeded permissible discretion by denying fees solely because Raishevich declined a judge-suggested settlement figure, absent a defendant’s offer or a finding of bad faith or litigation misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant’s wrongdoing makes damages hard to prove with precision, a court may estimate damages with reasonable latitude, but it must avoid awarding amounts that reflect impermissible duplication of that latitude.
- In § 1983 actions, a plaintiff who obtains a damages judgment is a prevailing party for § 1988 purposes.
- “Special circumstances” justifying denial of § 1988 fees are narrow; a complete denial cannot rest solely on the plaintiff’s rejection of a settlement amount proposed by the court during settlement discussions, particularly when it was not a formal offer by the defendant.
- Settlement conduct may be relevant to the reasonableness of a fee request, but it cannot be the sole basis for denying all fees without additional equitable justification.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s corrected damages award of $12,000 but required reconsideration of attorneys’ fees, holding that rejecting a court-suggested settlement figure, without more, does not constitute “special circumstances” warranting total denial of § 1988 fees to a prevailing civil-rights plaintiff.


Raishevich v. Foster, 247 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2001)