UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 2, 2010
TANAKA BIRDO, PLAINTIFF,
BRAD WOLENHAUPT, BRAD CALHOUN, BOB DEMIJIAN, OFFICER FISCHER, JERRY WOODS, OFFICER GRAY, FOREST ELKINS, UNKNOWN PARTY AND CISSY BURWELL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Tanaka Birdo's motion for attorney's fees for the work he performed on his own case (Doc. 56).
The law provides that a court may award a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing party in a variety of civil rights actions, including actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). However, even assuming Birdo is considered a prevailing party in his § 1983 action, the Court may not award attorney's fees under § 1988 to a pro se litigant. See Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105, 1120 (7th Cir. 1983) ("[A]n award of attorney's fees to a prisoner appearing pro se is not appropriate under Section 1988."); see also Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435 (1991) ("The Circuits are in agreement, however, on the proposition that a pro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to attorney's fees. . . . [W]e are also satisfied that they were correctly decided."). This holds true even if the pro se litigant is an attorney. Kay, 499 U.S. at 437.
For this reason, the Court DENIES Birdo's motion (Doc. 56). IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.