city’s police force and individual officers alleging civil rights violations arising from the racially discriminatory manner of defendants’ conduct and recovered their attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988); Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (awarding attorneys’ fees to nonprofit fair housing organization in its successful suit against an apartment complex owner who engaged in intentional and repeated racially discriminatory housing practices as proven by the organization’s “testers”). The FHCSD disputes the R & R’s characterization of its recovery as only a “technical” victory, arguing the 50% recovery of the $1,000.00 in damages sought cannot be construed as “so insignificant” that attorneys’ fees should be denied in their entirety on that basis. See Farrar, 506 U.S. at 113-114, 113 S.Ct. 566 (<HOLDING>). Once prevailing party status is conferred,
holding the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained in response to the question whether a nominal damages award is the sort of technical insignificant victory that cannot confer prevailing party status holding nominal damages sufficient to establish prevailing party status but affirming denial of attorneys fees on ground that award of nominal damages does not usually entitle a prevailing party to fees under 28 usc  1988 holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that civil rights plaintiff seeking attorneys fees must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship between itself and the defendant beyond this absolute limitation a technical victory may be so insignificant  as to be insufficient to support prevailing party status holding that the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained