◆ SpookStack

76 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 of 1976 [the Act], Pub. L. No. 94-559 (Oct. 19, 1976), codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We grant the request for an award of attorneys’ fees for their appellate work, but hold that plaintiffs presently are not eligible to receive an award for their trial endeavors. Section 1988 as amended reads: In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. This court has recently held in Davis v. Murphy, 587 F.2d 362 (7th Cir. 1978), that the Act permits a prevailing plaintiff on appeal to receive fees for appellate work. Accordingly, we have the discretion to award a reasonable fee to plaintiffs as part of their appellate costs unless special circumstances render such recovery unjust. Fed.R.App.P. 39. See also Wharton v. Knefel, 562 F.2d 550 (8th Cir. 1977). A review of the record fails to disclose any special circumstances which would render an award inequitable.“* No affidavits have been submitted by plaintiffs, however, to support their request. Therefore, plaintiffs should submit to this Court a statement of the fees requested supported by any rele- vant material and in affidavit form. Defendants shall be afforded an opportunity to respond. Employing the stan- dard expressed in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), factors bearing on the amount of the award will include (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question presented; (3) the skill re- quired to perform the legal services; (4) the preclu- sion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee in the 48 The state defendants argued in a motion to strike the “Anderson” reply brief that plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is not a proper subject for consideration because the request was not raised in plaintiffs’ opening brief. Plaintiffs, however, did assert the statutory basis for attorneys’ fees in their main brief although the argument was directed to the federal defendants.