Whether the Colorado Courts erred in holding that the Petitioners were not 'prevailing parties' on their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Colorado Courts ignored the intent of Congress set forth in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 and binding precedents of this Court, and erred in holding that the Petitioners were not “prevailing parties” on their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim after judicial relief concerning the claim changed the legal relationship between the parties to the Petitioners’ benefit without a ruling on the merits, and whether such claim was “substantial” to support an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988? 2. Whether the Colorado Courts ignored the intent of Congress set forth in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 and binding precedents of this Court, and erred in holding that Petitioners are not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 on a mooted 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim by holding that: (a) they are not “prevailing parties” for purposes of § 1988; (b) their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim was not “substantial”; and (c) the prevailing state law claims and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim did not arise from a “common nucleus of operative fact”?