the lodestar should be adjusted, only the first two inquiries must be addressed here. I turn to those twin tasks next. First, the plaintiff is clearly a prevailing party. He obtained virtually all the relief that he sought. Moreover, I find nothing inappropriate about awarding attorney fees against the state defendants. As to Mike Munch, however, the question is slightly more difficult. Mr. Munch argues that he was a nominal party, and this constitutes a-“special circumstance” for which I should use my discretion to deny an award of fees against him. It is true that Munch played a minor role in the presentation of the defense. It is also true that under “special circumstances” a prevailing plaintiff may be denied a fee. See, e.g., Hatfield v. Hayes, 877 F.2d 717, 719 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). However, Mr. Munch actively supported the
recognizing such an exception recognizing that this special circumstances exception is very narrowly limited  and that only on rare occasions does a case present such circumstances recognizing special circumstances exception recognizing exception recognizing hot pursuit exception as one example of exigent circumstances exception