In M. Samir Siddique v. UW Board of Regents (2017AP1443), the Court of Appeals District I held that a plaintiff is not considered a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney fees if the defendant voluntarily changes its conduct.

Siddique received sanctions for misconduct from UW Milwaukee after violating university policy in an incident involving student government organizations. Siddique appealed to the Board of Regents. After the Board of Regents upheld the UW Milwaukee decision, Siddique filed an action in circuit court. While the circuit court case was pending, Siddique had graduated, so UW Milwaukee voluntarily agreed to dismiss its discipline decision.

The issue in the instant appeal is whether Siddique is entitled to attorney fees as a “prevailing party” under the Wisconsin Equal Access to Justice Act (WEAJA). The WEAJA states that circuit courts must award fees to the “prevailing party in any action by a state agency” (Wis. Stat. § 841.245(3)).

Citing federal cases dealing with a federal law similar to the WEAJA, the appeals court ruled that a party is not considered a “prevailing party” if the defendant voluntarily changes its conduct outside of the court. In this case, UW Milwaukee decided to dismiss the discipline decision before the trial court decided on the merits of the case. Thus, there was no “judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship” (see Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources) between the university and Siddique, and Siddique was not a “prevailing party” entitled to fees.