UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
December 9, 1982
KENNETH OWENS-EL AND INMATES AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL
WARDEN WILLIAM ROBINSON, JAMES JENNINGS 440 ROSS ST. PITTSBURGH, PA. 15219 WARDEN WILLIAM ROBINSON (REINSTATED 8/30/77) KENNETH OWENS-EL, APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Author: Van Dusen
Before ADAMS, WEIS and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges
Opinion OF THE COURT
VAN DUSEN, Senior Circuit Judge:
This appeal challenges the district court's refusal to award a pro se litigant, who is not a lawyer, attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(1976 & Supp. IV), where an attorney already represented a class in which the litigant was eligible to be a member. We conclude that the district court properly refused to make such an award and affirm.
In 1976 Neighborhood Legal Services filed a class action on behalf of all inmates in the Allegheny County jail for a declaratory judgment holding that the conditions of confinement violated the inmates' constitutional rights. The district court consolidated the matter with a similar pro se suit filed in 1975 by the plaintiff Owens-El to obtain equitable relief and money damages. The district court permitted Owens-El to act as his own counsel. Finding that the named defendants had deprived the inmates of their constitutional rights, the district court required changes in jail conditions but rejected Ownes-El's claim for money damages. See Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F. Supp. 1368 and 457 F. Supp. 984 (W.D.Pa. 1978). On appeal, this court affirmed in part and remanded in part. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1979). Owens-El participated in the original action as a litigant but did not appeal the district court's final order.
In July of 1980 Owens-El filed a motion for attorney's fees, which the district court denied. Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F. Supp. 877 (W.D.Pa. 1980).*fn1 Owens-El appeals from the denial of his motion.*fn2
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 provides that the district court, in its discretion, may award the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee in an action to enforce section 1982.*fn3 Congress enacted this legislation in response to Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 44 L. Ed. 2d 141, 95 S. Ct. 1612 (1975), which held that the civil rights acts passed during the Reconstruction Era did not contain the necessary congressional authorization for the award of attorney's fees. Recognizing that these civil rights acts depended heavily upon private enforcement, Congress intended to succor the aggrieved citizen "who must sue to enforce the law [and] has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer." Congress further directed that the standards governing the award of attorney's fees in other types of equally complex federal litigation apply so that fees "are adequate to attract competent counsel, but which do not produce windfalls to attorneys." See S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in  U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 5908, 5910-13.
These frequent references to the engagement of counsel evince Congress' desire to enable victims of discrimination to be represented by lawyers and thereby to avoid subjecting themselves to the risks and perils of uncounseled litigation or to the possibility that a violation of their civil rights would occur without redress. Congress did not anticipate that courts would award attorney's fees as compensation to litigants representing themselves, who, undaunted and seemingly unharmed by ignorance of legal procedure, successfully pressed a section 1983 claim.
This court already has concluded that pro se non-lawyer litigants cannot be awarded attorney's fees under this Act. See Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311 (3d Cir. 1982).*fn4 The reasoning articulated therein and above applies with even greater force where, as here, plaintiff was eligible for membership in a class already represented by counsel.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award Owens-El attorney's fees. The order of the district court will be affirmed.