Vargas v. Kenney

USCA1 Opinion









February 1, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-1852

RODOLFO A. VARGAS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY R. E. KENNEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS DIRECTOR
OF THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Rodolfo A. Vargas on brief pro se. _________________
Michael K. Marran on brief for appellee. _________________


____________________


____________________












Per Curiam. In 1994, plaintiff/appellant Rodolfo A. ___________

Vargas brought suit alleging that, while employed at the

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management [DEM], he

had been subject to racial harassment and had been terminated

because of his national origin, both in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et __

seq. Judgment was entered for defendant after a three day ___

bench trial and affirmed by this court. Subsequent to

entering judgment, the district court granted the motion of

the defendant/appellee for attorneys' fees and costs,

purusant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k). Vargas' appeals the

grant of fees and costs. We affirm.

A prevailing defendant in a civil rights case is

entitled to fees and costs only if the defendant can

establish that the plaintiff's suit "was totally unfounded,

frivolous, or otherwise unreasonable." Case Marie Hogar _________________

Geriatrico, Inc. v. Rivera-Santos, 38 F.3d 615, 618 (1st Cir. ________________ _____________

1994) (citing cases). Given that the district court is "most

intimately familiar with the case and its nuances," Foster v. ______

Mydas Associates, Inc., 943 F.2d 139, 144 (1st Cir. 1991), _______________________

and thus in the best position to determine whether fee

shifting is warranted, we review an award of fees and costs

in a civil rights case only for abuse of discretion, Case ____

Marie, 38 F.3d at 618. Nonetheless, we do require "that _____

concrete findings of fact be made and that the court below

supply a clear explanation of the reasons undergirding a

particular fee award." Peckham v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., _______ _________________________

















895 F.2d 830, 842 (1st Cir. 1990). In addition, we have held

that "an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant

must not be oblivious of a plaintiff's financial capacity."

Charves v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 711 F.2d 462, 465 _______ ____________________________

(1st Cir. 1983).

In the instant case, the district court conducted a

careful review of all the evidence put forward by the

plaintiff and then determined that there was "absolutely no

factual basis for finding that the Defendant intentionally

discriminated against the Plaintiff or to find that any

treatment the Plaintiff received was based on some

discriminatory animus because of his race." We find the

reasons given by the district court for its fee shifting both

clear and firmly supported by the record. Moreover, after

making its award, the court afforded plaintiff three separate

opportunities to present evidence of any limited ability to

pay the award. Nevertheless, plaintiff, despite his claim of

limited financial resources, steadfastedly refused to provide

the court with any documentation as to his financial

condition. Having refused to meet the burden of establishing

his financial condition, plaintiff cannot be heard to

complain about any failure to adjust the award in light of

that condition. See Case Marie, 38 F.3d at 618 n.2. ___ __________

Finally, we find no support in the record for Vargas'

claim of judicial bias.



-3-













The order of the district court is affirmed.* ________












































____________________

* Appellee requests sanctions against appellant, pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 38, for bringing a frivolous appeal. However, Fed. R. App. P.
38 requires "a separately filed motion." Since no separate motion was
filed in this case, the request for sanctions is denied. ______

-4-