# Petition — Manchester Environmental Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0589%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1982
- **Citation:** 459 U.S. 1035

## Text

82-247

No

OCTOBER TERM, 1982

MANCHESTER ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION
and
MICHAEL DWORKIN
Petitioners

Vv.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL
Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WITH ATTACHED APPENDIX

ANTHONY F. PAGANO
Beck & Pagano

447 Center Street
Manchester, CT 06040
(203) 646-5606

Counsel for Petitioners

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether the denial, without opinion, of coste and
attorney's fees to a successful petitioner, suing for viola-
tions of the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et
seq., violates §7607(f) of the Act.

PARTIES

The Petitioners are Manchester Environmental
Coalition and Michael Dworkin (hereinafter, ‘‘Petition-
ers”). The Respondents are the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Connecticut Fund for the
Environment, Inc., John Walton, The State of
Connecticut, National Retail Merchants Association,
National Realty Committee and International Council of
Shopping Centers (hereinafter, ‘‘Respondents’’).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............ i
LIST OF PARTIES .........0ccccccccsceeeeeeeeeenes i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........6.6ccceeeeeeees ii
OPINION BELOW. .........0ccccccsceeeeceeeeeenenes 1
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT............6.60005 1
UNITED STATES STATUTE RELEVANT TO

BEBE TEER OON cc cccccccccccccccccccccccccccces 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE & BASIS FOR

ORIGINAL FEDERAL JURISDICTION ......... 2
RETBUREIIINE cc cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccecs 3
eee Fit PPPPTTTTTTTTITITITI TTT TTT ri rir ir eee 10
rg | > SPMPPPPTTTTITITITITITITITITTTT TTT Tree 1A

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page

Cases:
Alabama Power Co, v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir.

\ MPPYTTITITITITITITITTTITTT iT irirrrrer ri iir ee 4
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness

Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). .... 66... c cee eees 3, 5, 6

Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 572 F.2d 216 (4th Cir.

PPPPPPYYPYTTTITTTTT LTT TTT TTTTTTTTTTiT rere: 8
Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 (7th Cir.), cert. de-

nied, 70 L.Ed.2d 212, 102 S.Ct. 396 ..........6655. 5
Cohen v. West Haven Board of Police Commission-

ers, 638 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1980) ....... 666s cece eees 9
Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir.

EREEPFPPPTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TT TTT Tire 7,8
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 672 F.2d

Ge Ge Ge BE cocccccccedecccececocesoecces 4,8
Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 603 F.2d 177, (D.C.

| PPPPPTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTiT ire er 7
Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.2d 165 (2d Cir.

1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S, 902 (1977) ............ 5

Hameed v. International Ass'n. of Bridge, Structural
& Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 396, 637 F.2d
Be Ge GS Ecc ccccccesocceccccececcoosceses 8

Hymes v. Harmett County Board of Education, 664
F.2d 410 (4th Cir, 1981)..... 0... cece ccceeeeeeeeees 9

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d
We OU GS Bc che seecceececcsecceccocecosedes 7

Manchester Environmental Coalition v. EPA, 612
OE, TL: on pha s pce cn uncecdececasedé 5

Metropolitan Washington Coalition for Clean Air v.
District of Columbia, 639 F.2d 802 (D.C. Cir.

Murphy v. Kolovitz, 635 F.2d 662, 664 (7th Cir.

Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (ist Cir. 1978)
New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54

ee tran ladveese Lia ia
Northern Plains Resource Council v. EPA, 670 F.2d

BEF Geet Ge Tc ccccccccccecccccccccccccccccess 4
National Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 484 F.2d

| FT . BPPPYTTTTTTTTTTTT TTT ree 4
Prate v. Friedman, 683 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1978).......... 7
Sargeant v. Sharp, 579 F.2d 645, 647 (lst Cir.

PPPPPPPPTTTT TTTIT TTT eT Ti TTT Tirririrre ey 8
Sethy v. Alameda County Water District, 602 F.2d

894 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. — 444 U.S. 1046

—— PFPPPPPTTTTOTT TT TTT TTTT CTTTTTITT Tri ye 8
Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir.

PPPPEPPPPTTTTTTITITITITTTTTTTTTTTTTT Tir ry 4,9
Statutes:
a TN | BPPPPPTTTTTITITT TTT TTTTTTTT TTT rer ire 6
16 U.S.C. §1540(gN4). 0... c cece e eee eeeeweees 6
BD TE, GEO cc ccccccccecceccccccnvcccosceccsoccece 2
iL | | BPPPPTTTTTTTTTTT TT TTTTTTT Tere iii ey 6

iv

BB UBS. GISGG nr rcccccvcvccccceccccccsscvescccccecs 6

83 U.S.C. §1415(g).. 6.6 cece cece cece eee eeeeeeeeeenenes 6
GB UGG, GEGIG cc rccccccccccccccccccccccccccccevccces 6
4B UBC, GOOD... crcccccccccsccccccccccccvecececees 6
42 U.S.C, §$2000A-O(b) 0... c cece e cere eeeeenenes 5
42 U.S.C. §20000-5(K) (1976)... 6.6 cece eee e eee e eens 6
GB UBD, GOBUL oo cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccceees 6
4B UDG, GOOTB oc ccccccrcccccccccccccccvcccvccecccces 6
42 U.S.C, §7401, et 80... 66. c cece cee ceceeeeeeeees (i), 2
42 U.S.C, §7GO7T(D). 1... cece cece tere eeeeeeewereeeeees 2
42 U.S.C, §TG0T(f). 6... ccc cece eees (i), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
GD VBR. GEO coccccccccccccccccccescccccccccccocccs 6
Federal Regulations:

45 Fed. Reg. 84769-84787 (1980) ...........ccccceeeees 2
Miscellaneous:

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. Ist
Sess, 337 (1977, reprinted in 1977 U.S. Code

Cong. & Ad. News 1077, 1416...........6c0ceceeee 3
Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit - Rule 27(c) and (h) .............. 1,3

OPINION BELOW

reported at 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.

of the United States Court of Appeals
Circuit, which appears at p. 1 of the

is

opinion
Second
infra,

The
the

§

-_

ie Hs

iad
‘+i

A

i

Hu
tte

JURISDICTION

Petitioners’ Motion for Attor-
was entered on April 9, 1982.

Reconsideration was entertained and

RELEVANT STATUTES

42 U.S.C. Section 7607(f):

si3
(i

STATEMENT OF

guts
qi?

moved, on March 3, 1982, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 7607(f) for an award of costs of suit,

ee

<
&

538 z Aina]
aig ie bil F : :
a ae i Tae
i a HH bie
vie elnee seapeelats
; i: i; gS

itt i He lar:
at ad Sled a

PH BTL mt Iyer. Tt ae SHE
We Far een Pee
cleats Gr eld ti
i! i r : 13,3 ds TH tt

teeth
lis Ht Te Aaa

Tae Hi: i

int ; Site Hl

the parties sought in bringing suit”

. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-279 (ist
1978). Accord, Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 (7th
.), cert. denied, 70 L.Ed.2d 212, 102 S.Ct. 396 (1981).

i

The Second Circuit's denial of attorney's fees in this
case not only conflicts with the decisions of other
circuits, but also with prior decisions of the Second
Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.2d
6), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) and
Environmental Coclition v. EPA, 612

determining when an award of attorney's fees is
“appropriate”, or the factors to be used in calculating

the amount of such an award.

In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
Society, supra, this Court had occasion to review various

statutory provisions allowing attorney's fees,

(see £21 U.S. 261 at n. 35), the Alyeska Court, in
discussing another discretionary statute, Title II of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000a-e(b), noted
that

We have held that Congress intended that the
award should be made to the successful plaintiff
absent exceptional circumstances. Newman uv.
Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400,
402, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263, 88 S.Ct. 964 (1968).

421 U.S. at 262.

Likewise, in New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S.
54 (1980), the court relied upon the legislative history of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§2000e-5(K), to hold that ‘the courts’ discretion to deny
a fee award to a prevailing plaintiff is narrow. Absent
‘special circumstances,’ ... fees should be awarded.” 447

U.S. at 68. Similarly, the legislative history of the Clean
Air Act mandates an award of attorney's fees in this

supra, and Newman v. Piggie Park, supra. The interpre-
tation of the provision at issue here, Section 307 of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7607, should be accorded even

Environmental acts containing similar provisions include Section
505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1365;
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean
Dumping Act), 33 U.S.C. §1415(g); Section 12 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. §4911; Section 11 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1540ig); Section 16 of Port
Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. §1515; Section 1449 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300j-8; Section 7002 of the Resource Conser-

ma
tea. 3 22833
it Sea
tk i i PHB abi! Mi
aia ; pial] Ch ii}! Biull
leat AHI AH
13445 mae : badbaet jie THE 24]
tea | lentes ai
ual, ry beeree te aiih
abaeta ZF ie u: iis paltadly
— HEHE

638 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1978); Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc.,
572 F.2d 216, (4th Cir. 1973), as has the analysis

forth in Copeland,® the application of these criteria is
from

B. THE OPINION DENYING ATTORNEY'S FEES
SHOULD BE VACATED AS THE COURT'S
FAILURE TO ARTICULATE A REASON FOR
ITS DENIAL CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.

In exercising whatever degree of discretion it has in
awarding or denying attorney's fees, a court must
articulate the reasons for its decision. To deny discre-
tionary fees without stating a reason constitutes an
abuse of discretion. Murphy v. Kolovitz, 635 F.2d 662,
664 (7th Cir. 1981); Hameed v. International Ass'n of
Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
396, 637 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1980); Sethy v. Alameda
County Water District, 602 F.2d 894, 897 (9th Cir.
1979), cert denied, 444 U.S. 1046 (i980); Sargeant v.
Sharp, 579 F.2d 645, 647 (lst Cir. 1978). Similarly,

reversal. Hymes v. Harmett County Board of Education,
664 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1981); Hedrich v. Hercules, Inc.
658 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1981); Cohen v. West Haven
Board of Police Commissioners, 638 F.2d 496 (2d Cir.
1980).

In the present case, Petitioners, for the purpose of
securing this Court's review of the Second Circuit's
orced

dangerous precedent which can only cripple enforcement,
not only of the Clean Air Act, but if a wide panoply of

other environmental statutes as well.

As the Court stated in Sierra Club v. Gorsuch,
supra, 672 F.2d at 36:

ment of statutory goals. When the government
is attempting to carry out a program of such
vast and uncharted dimensions, there are roles
for both the official agency and a private watch-
dog. tion

Without this Court's defining “appropriate” in 42
U.S.C. Section 7607(f) and defining the factors relevant
to a fee award, the government will be free to continue
its reign of litigation terror; not litigation to prevent
pollution but :ather to prevent enforcement actions by
those “private watchdogs of the environment” whe have

administrative enforcement action by the EPA, a
decision in this case is of utmost importance.

CONCLUSION

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0589%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.