0000061711 00000 n 0000004114 00000 n 0000042477 00000 n Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Jack E. Tanner, Judge. William A. Coats, Clifford Foster, Jr., Kane, Vandeberg, Hartinger & Walker, Tacoma, Wash., for defendants-appellants.

Matthew Fraser was suspended from high school for two days and his name was removed from the list of candidates for commencement speaker after he delivered at a school assembly a campaign speech containing sexual innuendo. 2d 549 (1986). A. 0000002510 00000 n Matthew Fraser (plaintiff), a high school senior was suspended for three days by the Bethel School District (defendant) after he gave a lewd speech full of sexual innuendos in front of six hundred students at a school assembly. 0000006487 00000 n Fraser sued the school district. Furthermore, while the Supreme Court's decision unquestionably compels the conclusion that Fraser is no longer a prevailing party with respect to his First Amendment claim for damages, that decision in no way affects his statutory right to fees expended in litigating the discrete due process issue. at 3167 n. *. Grano v. Barry, 783 F.2d 1104, 1109 (D.C. Cir.
The Supreme Court's reversal of the district court's First Amendment ruling therefore limits the amount of fees to which Fraser is entitled but does not extinguish his entitlement in its entirety. The motion of plaintiffs-appellees, filed on December 8, 1986, for an award of "partial attorney's fees," is denied. 2d 40 (1983), he is entitled to fees for work on any discrete claim under which he achieves some of the benefit he sought in bringing suit. On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. See, e.g., Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 847-48 (9th Cir. ' [P]laintiffs may be considered "prevailing parties" for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.'

403 v. Fraser, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. However, the Supreme Court agreed with us that the dispute over the appropriateness of the injunction became moot when Fraser delivered his commencement speech, and the Court therefore did not address the merits of the due process question. I respectfully dissent from the denial of Fraser's request for partial attorney's fees.

0000004772 00000 n 0000002283 00000 n 1980) ("Our previous dismissal of the appeal as moot and vacation of the district court judgment does not affect the fact that for the pertinent time period [the plaintiff] obtained the desired relief...."). 0000002000 00000 n 0000001052 00000 n 1986). 1985). Of course, had the district court's due process ruling been overturned on the merits, then Fraser would not be entitled to any fees because " [a]n erroneously granted injunction cannot be the basis for an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party." Bethel School District No.

at 435-37, 103 S. Ct. at 1940-41; Sethy, 602 F.2d at 898. Bethel School District No. A. 403 v. FRASER, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) Argued March 3, 1986 Decided July 7, 1986. Jeffrey T. Haley, Simburg, Ketter, Haley, Sheppard & Purdy, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellees. The district court held the school’s sanctions violated Fraser’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 0000002843 00000 n The Supreme Court subsequently reversed our decision on the First Amendment question, concluding that the School District's actions did not violated Fraser's First Amendment rights. 403 v. Fraser. Because Fraser clearly is a partially prevailing party under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit caselaw, he is entitled to reasonable fees for his efforts in successfully defending his due process rights. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. 2d 731 (1980).


Fraser is a "partially prevailing party" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 0000001293 00000 n The district court awarded Fraser monetary damages compensating him for his suspension and enjoined the school district from preventing him from speaking at graduation. NO. Hence, the district court's ruling in Fraser's favor on his due process claim was never reviewed, let alone reversed, by any appellate court. However, because Fraser had already delivered a commencement speech by the time we considered the appeal, we vacated the injunction as moot and refused to review the district court's ruling that Fraser's disqualification from the graduation speaker competition violated his due process rights.

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. 0000061753 00000 n A student gave a nominating speech in a general school assembly that described another candidate with strong sexual metaphors. 0000005416 00000 n at 1365-66 & n. 12. § 1988 because he was awarded all of the relief he sought on one of his discrete constitutional claims presented to the district court. 0000003507 00000 n %PDF-1.3 %���� 0000005958 00000 n

Id. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. H��UMS�0��W�1�Pa˶,!$�m��3J����$q��0�{$��p���Hڷ��{��?q��qՋ"�����lX{�j�����%4�\����ܘ�1����ָH���A����#��d�_\������@b��ڼ9q4@�ffsh1Xpc��4�kT�;�C��-�,0�� ��:ۛ�06*S�f�1u���DO�y��>I�w]E��:��C�G�s����2;{c��Ǭ�� Fraser v. Bethel School District No. 2d 549, 1986 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Id. 0000001391 00000 n 0000041593 00000 n

" Sethy v. Alameda County Water District, 602 F.2d 894, 897-98 (9th Cir. He sued the Bethel School District in federal court, alleging deprivations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and praying for both monetary damages and injunctive relief allowing him to compete for commencement speaker. Facts of the case. The district court afforded Fraser relief on two separate constitutional theories, holding both that the school's sanctions violated Fraser's First Amendment rights and that his disqualification from consideration for commencement speaker violated his due process rights because the school's disciplinary codes did not fairly warn that such a penalty might be imposed. They have not prevailed on any issue and no award of fees is warranted on any theory. 0000001114 00000 n

0000000816 00000 n

trailer <]>> startxref 0 %%EOF 41 0 obj<>stream 0000001734 00000 n 2d 549 (1986). We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly. FRASER, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. 403 v. Fraser, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Bethel School District No. 1979) (citation omitted), cert. 0000061731 00000 n It is settled law that when a plaintiff "present [s] in one lawsuit distinctly different claims for relief that are based on different facts and legal theories," Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1940, 76 L. Ed. 0000001565 00000 n The speech was designed to promote Fraser’s fellow classmate for a student government position, and the assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self … At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. denied, 444 U.S. 1046, 100 S. Ct. 734, 62 L. Ed. 0000001768 00000 n of Ninth Circuit opinions. But Ninth Circuit authority clearly holds that an injunction is not somehow deemed "erroneously granted" merely because it is vacated after becoming moot on appeal and that the plaintiff benefitting even temporarily from the injunction is therefore still a prevailing party on this issue. Before WRIGHT, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. Under such circumstances Fraser must be deemed a "prevailing party" on the due process issue. " 16 0 obj <> endobj xref 16 26 0000000016 00000 n 403, 755 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 0000007006 00000 n

1986). However, the Supreme Court agreed with us that the dispute over the appropriateness of the injunction became moot when Fraser delivered his commencement speech, and the Court therefore did not address the merits of the due process question. x�b```�V�6``��0p, r^�s�q�2�a`X�,"�Q�sHg���!+vK�v��J��= �A�(�C4�� �C1��~��2�1\adg8�h�����T�T������3cAk3s�7P5�?�� ��/ ��� endstream endobj 17 0 obj<> endobj 18 0 obj<> endobj 19 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>> endobj 20 0 obj<> endobj 21 0 obj<> endobj 22 0 obj[/ICCBased 36 0 R] endobj 23 0 obj<> endobj 24 0 obj[250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 333 0 0 250 0 250 0 500 500 0 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 667 722 722 667 611 0 778 389 500 0 667 944 722 778 0 0 722 556 667 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 444 556 444 0 500 556 278 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 444 0 0 556 500 0 0 500] endobj 25 0 obj<> endobj 26 0 obj[250 0 408 0 500 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 250 333 250 0 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 0 0 0 0 0 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 0 667 556 611 722 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444] endobj 27 0 obj<>stream Id. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly.

Citation 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. Indeed, from Fraser's point of view, " [t]he mootness of the subsequent appeal of [the injunction's issuance] ... emphasizes, rather than detracts from, the practical substance of [his] victory." We found that the School District's actions violated Fraser's First Amendment rights and upheld the district court's judgment awarding Fraser damages. Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir. ���nl���N4��!��{�B�q��a�6�������.�bϒ�a�$i�����Q��X�of38�˝��-�Y�^���*�1�˜v������!���`�Gx�G�Rde�.

0000007394 00000 n In his speech, Fraser used what some … The School District appealed the district court's ruling to this court.