# Robert B. Clarkson v. Internal Revenue Service and John Henderson, District Director

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · June 21, 1982 · 678 F.2d 1368

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469236

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert B. CLARKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and John Henderson, District Director, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** June 21, 1982
- **Citations:** 678 F.2d 1368; 63 A.L.R. Fed. 657; 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1933; 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5407; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18167
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clark
- **Judges:** Tuttle, Tjoflat, Clark
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469236

## Opinion text

CLARK, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring.
I enthusiastically concur in Judge Tuttle’s opinion which admirably and painstakingly analyzes a citizen’s First Amendment protection of his freedom of speech rights as amplified by the Privacy Act. However, once again I take issue with the holding that a pro se litigant who substantially prevails cannot recover attorney fees, as I did in Lovell v. Alderete, 630 F.2d 428, 434 (5th Cir. 1980). I recognize that precedent binds us as a panel and therefore under the law the instant opinion is correct.
Nevertheless, I continue to speak out against an interpretation of the statute that permits reimbursement for money spent for attorney fees but denies it for time spent to accomplish the same result. Time is precious to everyone. Taking time away from gainful employment or enjoyable leisure to enforce one’s rights is a valuable consideration for which reimbursement should be obtainable, and is just as much “a stock in trade” as is an attorney’s time. There is nothing in the Act or Congressional history to suggest that Congress intended to favor a person with money who could afford an attorney over a poorer person who could not, and who could not enlist free legal services.
Therefore, I register my disagreement with this holding, while recognizing that we as a panel are bound by Lovell .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469236. Public record. Not legal advice.