Lopez v. Cook, et al

Filing 519

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/19/2016 GRANTING 508 Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees; AWARDING the plaintiff $1.50 for attorneys' fees and $4,000.00 for costs. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

12

No. 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-EFB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

S. COOK, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
After more than twelve years of civil litigation in the district and appellate court,

17
18

begun with numerous claims against several officers and employees at High Desert State Prison,

19

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Corcoran State Prison, plaintiff

20

Andrew Lopez prevailed at trial on one claim against Special Services Unit Agent John A.

21

Harrison in January 2016. Three months after the close of trial, Mr. Lopez’s counsel moved for

22

attorneys’ fees and costs. While defendant does not dispute Mr. Lopez is the prevailing party,

23

defendant challenges the amount of fees and costs to be awarded. As explained below, the court

24

GRANTS Mr. Lopez’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs IN PART.

25

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, the court discusses the

26
27

factual background only to the extent relevant to Mr. Lopez’s motion.

28

/////
1

1

After numerous rounds of law and motion practice, a prior trial at which

2

Mr. Lopez represented himself, and an appeal, Mr. Lopez proceeded on remand on one claim in

3

his fourth amended complaint against three defendants: a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due

4

process claim against Agent Harrison, Institutional Gang Investigator (IGI) R.S. Johnson, and IGI

5

D. Shaver based on their placement of Mr. Lopez in administrative segregation and validation of

6

him as a member of a gang. ECF No. 408. Following remand, in September 2014, Mr. Lopez

7

and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Mr. Lopez argued defendants’ failure

8

to give notice and an opportunity to be heard in the gang validation procedure violated his due

9

process rights as a matter of law. ECF No. 392 at 8. Co-defendants Johnson and Shaver argued

10

Agent Harrison was responsible for the gang validation, and all defendants argued they were

11

entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. ECF No. 393 at 13, 17.

12

On March 2, 2015, the court denied both parties’ motions on the due process issue,

13

concluding, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s finding, there was a “disputed question of fact”

14

regarding whether Agent Harrison, or any other defendant, was a “critical decision-maker” in Mr.

15

Lopez’s gang validation process. ECF No. 410 at 6. As to defendants’ qualified immunity

16

argument, the court held, again consistent with the Ninth Circuit, there was a deprivation of a

17

“clearly established” constitutional right, which precluded defendants’ entitlement to qualified

18

immunity. Id. Because a disputed question of fact precluded summary judgment, Mr. Lopez’s

19

case would proceed to trial on the issue of who was the “critical decision-maker” in his gang

20

validation process. Id. at 6.

21

At trial, the jury concluded Agent Harrison was the critical decision-maker, ECF

22

No. 499 at 1, but did not award Mr. Lopez any damages for the due process violation, ECF

23

No. 505 at 2. After the court excused the jury, it confirmed with counsel that nominal damages

24

were warranted here, and assessed $1.00 in damages against Agent Harrison in favor of

25

Mr. Lopez. ECF No. 500 at 3.

26

II.

27
28

DISCUSSION
Mr. Lopez’s counsel moves for $71,520.80 in attorneys’ fees and $6,065.87 in

costs. Mot. 5, ECF No. 508. Agent Harrison opposes the motion, contending the Prison
2

1

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) significantly limits the amount of attorneys’ fees the court can

2

award to counsel because Mr. Lopez is a prisoner. Opp’n 1, ECF No. 513. Agent Harrison also

3

argues counsel’s motion for costs is untimely and improper. Id.

4

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides that in federal civil rights actions, “the court, in its

5

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorneys’

6

fee as part of the costs.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 426 (1983). A plaintiff must

7

qualify as a “prevailing party” to recover a fee under § 1988. Id. at 433. Here, the parties do not

8

dispute Mr. Lopez is the prevailing party, see Mot. at 4, Opp’n at 2, so the court proceeds to

9

determine what award, if any, should be granted.

10
11

A.

Fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
Once the court determines the prevailing party, it must then determine the

12

reasonable attorneys’ fee to award. McGrath v. Cty of Nev., 67 F.3d 248, 252 (9th Cir. 1995).

13

Where, as here, the prevailing party is a prisoner, the court’s authority to award attorneys’ fees is

14

constrained by the PLRA, which provides in pertinent part,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are
authorized under section 1988 of this title, such fees shall not be
awarded, except to the extent that—
(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an
actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute
pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 of this
title; and
(ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the
relief ordered for the violation.

24

(2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action
described in paragraph (1), a portion of the judgment (not to exceed
25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees
awarded against the defendant. If the award of attorney’s fees is
not greater than 150 percent of the judgment, the excess shall be
paid by the defendant.

25

(3) No award of attorney’s fees in an action described in paragraph

26

(1) shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the
hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment
of court-appointed counsel.

22
23

27
28

3

1

3

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a prisoner from
entering into an agreement to pay an attorney’s fee in an amount
greater than the amount authorized under this subsection, if the fee
is paid by the individual rather than by the defendant pursuant to
section 1988 of this title.

4

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) (footnote omitted). As relevant here, in cases where the plaintiff is awarded

5

damages without injunctive relief, the PLRA caps the total amount of fees awarded. Dannenberg

6

v. Valadez, 338 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (cap applies to fees incurred solely to obtain

7

money damages).

2

8
9

Here, the parties dispute how this statutory cap affects the amount of attorneys’
fees the court should award. Specifically, counsel for Mr. Lopez contends the PLRA requires this

10

court to multiply their fee rates by 150 percent, Mot. at 2, while Agent Harrison contends

11

Mr. Lopez’s counsel is limited to 150 percent of the nominal damages monetary judgment, which

12

amounts to $1.50, Opp’n at 1. The court addresses this issue below.

13

The parties have not alerted the court to Ninth Circuit authority discussing the

14

PLRA’s effect on fees when plaintiff has obtained a nominal damages award of $1.00, and the

15

court has found no controlling authority. In the absence of governing law, this court looks to

16

other circuits’ determination of the PLRA’s effect under the circumstances here. Other circuits

17

consistently interpret the PLRA to limit fees to 150 percent of the monetary judgment, including

18

when the “monetary judgment” comprises nominal damages of $1.00.

19

In Bolvin v. Black, for example, a pre-trial detainee moved for an award of

20

$3,892.50 in attorneys’ fees after prevailing in a civil rights action against a correctional officer

21

and obtaining $1.00 in nominal damages. 225 F.3d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 2000). The district court held

22

the term “monetary judgment,” as used in the PLRA, did not include a nominal damages award

23

and therefore found the fee cap was inapplicable. Id. The First Circuit reversed, concluding the

24

language of section 1997e(d)(2) was abundantly clear to the contrary: “[w]henever a monetary

25

judgment is awarded” in an action covered by the PLRA and the prevailing party seeks attorneys’

26

fees, the defendant shall pay such fees up to a maximum of 150 percent of the judgment amount,

27

“and no more.” Id. at 40. The phrase “money judgment,” the First Circuit held, included an

28

award of $1.00. Id. Accordingly, the “unambiguous text” of the PLRA required the court to
4

1

award no more than $1.50 in attorneys’ fees. Id. at 41. The First Circuit remanded with

2

instructions to reduce the plaintiff’s fee award to $1.50. Id. at 46.

3

Other circuits have agreed with the First Circuit’s reasoning and reached similar

4

conclusions. See, e.g., Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603, 607 (2d Cir. 2011) (plain language of

5

PLRA limited attorney fee award to $1.50 where plaintiff awarded $1.00 in nominal damages);

6

Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732, 744 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e affirm the district court’s award of

7

$1.50 for attorney’s fees, which represents 150% of [Plaintiff’s] $1.00 monetary award”);

8

Robbins v. Chronister, 402 F.3d 1047, 1050 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Under the plain language rule of

9

statutory construction, therefore, the fee cap contained in § 1997e(d) would apply to [the

10

plaintiff’s] attorney’s fees, limiting the award to $1.50.”); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 704

11

(8th Cir. 2001) (“[Plaintiff] is entitled to no more than $1.50 in attorney’s fees.”). Every circuit to

12

address the question has interpreted the PLRA this way. Congress has not amended the statute to

13

clarify otherwise.

14

The result, in this court’s view, is not seamlessly linked to the PLRA’s explicit

15

purpose to “prevent frivolous prison condition lawsuits filed by criminals,” Andrews v. King, 398

16

F.3d 1113, 1122 n. 11 (9th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff not afforded in forma pauperis privilege under

17

PLRA where he did not establish he did not have three prior cases dismissed on grounds they

18

were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state claim), given that a liability finding coupled with

19

nominal damages does not render a claim frivolous, cf. Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th

20

Cir. 2014) (“The PLRA is intended to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but not to eliminate the

21

ameliorative effect achieved by valid constitutionally-based challenges.”). That said, the court

22

finds other circuits’ reading of the applicable statute persuasive and follows suit.

23

Mr. Lopez cites several cases to support a fee award greater than $1.50, but these

24

cases are distinguishable. For example, in Webb v. Ada County., 285 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir.

25

2002), the court reviewed the district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees in the context of

26

issuing a consent decree, and did not discuss the PLRA’s limitations in a case in which plaintiff

27

received a monetary judgment, id; see also Hadix v. Johnson, 398 F.3d 863, 865 (6th Cir. 2005)

28
5

1

(discussing PLRA’s effect on attorneys’ fees where parties entered into a consent decree);

2

Batchelder v. Geary, No. 71–02017, 2007 WL 2427989, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2007) (same).

3

In the absence of any authority authorizing more than 150 percent of the monetary

4

judgment under circumstances such as those presented here, the court finds the statute limits

5

Mr. Lopez’s attorneys’ fees to $1.50. Counsel’s motion for costs, however, is not so constrained

6

by the PLRA.

7
8
9
10
11

B.

Costs
Mr. Lopez’s counsel request $6065.87 in costs incurred during the proceedings.

Mot. at 5. In opposition, Mr. Harrison contends costs should not be granted because Mr. Lopez’s
motion is untimely and otherwise improper. Opp’n at 4.
As the prevailing party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs other than attorneys’ fees as

12

a matter of course, unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court

13

otherwise directs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Allowable expenses, which may be taxed as costs

14

against a losing party, are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, discussed in more detail below.

15

1.

16

Local Rule 292(b), regarding costs a prevailing party claims, provides:

17

20

Within fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment or order under
which costs may be claimed, the prevailing party may serve on all
other parties and file a bill of costs conforming to 28 U.S.C. § 1924.
The cost bill shall itemize the costs claimed and shall be supported
by a memorandum of costs and an affidavit of counsel that the costs
claimed are allowable by law, are correctly stated, and were
necessarily incurred.

21

E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(b). Under Local Rule 292(c), “the party against whom costs are claimed may,

22

within seven (7) days from date of service, file specific objections to claimed items with a

23

statement of grounds for objection.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(c). The Ninth Circuit has held the

24

decision to decline awarding costs is one of “discretion.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v.

25

Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). But discretion is “not unlimited.” Id. at 592. The

26

district court must “specify reasons” for its refusal to award costs. Id.

18
19

27
28

Timeliness of Bill of Costs

Here, the court entered judgment on January 29, 2016. ECF No. 503. Mr. Lopez’s
counsel submitted a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on February 24, 2016, more than
6

1

fourteen days following judgment. See generally Mot. Defendant Harris argues Mr. Lopez “was

2

required” to file his bill of costs fourteen days after the entry of judgment, Opp’n at 4, but cites no

3

authority other than the plain language of Local Rule 292(b), which is on its face is permissive in

4

its use of the word “may.” The court thus considers cases addressing the propriety of awarding

5

costs when the prevailing party has not complied with Local Rule 292(b)’s fourteen-day time

6

period.

7

The court’s treatment in Osei v. GMAC Mortgage is illustrative of a court’s

8

decision to award costs to prevailing party who has not complied with the local rules. See Case

9

No. 09–2534, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57757 at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2010). In Osei, the

10

defendants sought $634.46 in costs after prevailing in a mortgage suit. Id. at *2. The defendants

11

and plaintiff all failed to comply with the timelines in Rules 292(b) and 292(c), respectively, but

12

the plaintiff did not withdraw his opposition to the defendants’ bill of costs. Id. In determining

13

whether to grant defendants’ motion, the court looked beyond the parties’ procedural errors and to

14

their respective financial resources. Id. at *3. In the end, the court declined to award costs not

15

because of defendants’ failure to comply with the local rule, or based on the plaintiff’s opposition,

16

but because defendants were “major financial corporations, [while] [p]laintiff, the losing party,

17

[was] facing foreclosure of his home and has limited financial resources.” Id. (citing Mexican-

18

Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 592, in which Ninth Circuit approved losing party’s limited financial

19

resources as a reason for refusing to award costs to a prevailing party). The defendants’ request

20

was denied. Id.

21

The decision in Osei is consistent with the determination that the court was not

22

mandated to deny costs simply because the prevailing party failed to comply with Local Rule

23

292(b)’s fourteen day timeline. See id. at *2. The court finds Osei persuasive in this respect.

24

Unlike in Osei, however, defendant Harris does not contend he will be unduly prejudiced or

25

otherwise harmed if the court awards costs. The court DENIES Agent Harrison’s challenge on

26

untimeliness grounds, and proceeds to the merits of Lopez’s motion.

27
28
7

1

2.

2

Mr. Lopez requests $6,065.87 but submits a declaration supporting costs totaling

3

an even $6,000. See ECF No. 508-2. Accordingly, the court will grant at most $6,000 in costs.

4

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 292(b) (“The cost bill shall itemize the costs claimed . . .”).

Merits

5

Unless otherwise authorized explicitly by statute or contract, the court may award

6

only costs enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S.

7

437, 445 (1987). The types of costs allowed under section 1920 are:

8

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

9

(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any
materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special
interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

17

28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court is free to interpret the meaning of the terms in section 1920 to tailor

18

them to the facts of the case before it. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177

19

(9th Cir. 1990).

20

a)

Expert Witness Fees

21

Counsel requests reimbursement for expert witness fees. Navarro Decl. at 6, ECF

22

No. 508-2. When a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witness,

23

the federal court is bound by the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1821 (b), which limits fees to $40.00

24

per day. Crawford Fitting, 482 U.S. at 439 (“There is no provision that sets a limit on the

25

compensation for court-appointed expert witnesses in the way that § 1821(b) sets a limit for

26

litigants’ witnesses.).

27
28

The witness fee applicable to a party’s own expert witnesses is specified in section
1920(3) and defined in § 1821:
8

1
2
3

(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a witness in attendance
at any court of the United States . . . shall be paid the fees and
allowances provided by this section.

5

(b) A witness shall be paid an attendance fee of $40 per day for
each day’s attendance. A witness shall also be paid the attendance
fee for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from
the place of attendance at the beginning and end of such attendance
or at any time during such attendance.

6

28 U.S.C. § 1821. “Attendance” as used in the statute is interpreted to mean each day involved in

7

a trial procedure. See Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 1995). Under

8

§ 1821, the statutorily mandated total fees, including the daily fees, of an expert witness may be

9

taxed as costs where his testimony was material to an issue tried and reasonably necessary to its

4

10

disposition. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1821; United Cali. Bank v. THC Fin. Corp., 557 F.2d 1351, 1360 (9th

11

Cir.1977); see Gorelangton v. City of Reno By & Through City of Reno Council of

12

Councilpersons, 638 F. Supp. 1426, 1432 (D. Nev. 1986) (awarding $500 to expert witness

13

whose testimony was “very important to the defendants.”). In discussing the interrelation

14

between sections 1920 and 1821, the Supreme Court has observed, Ҥ 1821 specifies the amount

15

of the fee that must be tendered to a witness, § 1920 provides that the fee may be taxed as a cost.”

16

Crawford, 482 U.S. at 441.

17

Here, Mr. Lopez requests $2,000 for the “[c]onsultation and Declaration by [expert

18

witness] Daniel Vasquez.” ECF No. 508-2 at 6. But Mr. Vasquez did not testify in any of the

19

two trials held on Mr. Lopez’s civil rights claims. See Minutes for Jury Trial at ECF Nos. 286

20

(Trial #1 Day 1), 289 (Day 2), 291 (Day 3), 292 (Day 4), 295 (Day 5); id. at ECF Nos. 483 (Trial

21

#2 Day 1), 487 (Day 2), 493 (Day 3), 500 (Day 4). Further, Mr. Lopez does not contend

22

Vasquez’s testimony was necessary to his case. Because Mr. Vasquez did not testify at any trial,

23

“his testimony” was not necessary to an issue tried or to the dispositions.

24
25
26
27

Mr. Lopez’s motion for expert fees is DENIED.
b)

Subpoenas Served

Counsel also requests $4,000 for “[f]unds spent on serving subpoenas at first trial
by Lopez family.” Navarro Decl. at 6.

28
9

1

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held private process servers’ fees can be

2

taxed as costs under section 1920(1), which includes “[f]ees of the clerk and marshal.” Alflex,

3

914 F.2d at 178. While section 1920(1) authorizes fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1921 governs the “collection

4

of fees for serving a subpoena or summons.” Id. That private parties incurred fees instead of

5

federal marshals does not preclude reimbursement because, as the court noted, private parties

6

have largely taken on the responsibility of serving summons and subpoenas. Id.

7

Here, where service was by a private party, the court concludes the $4,000 fee is

8

properly taxable as costs. That Mr. Lopez litigated his first trial in pro per does not preclude him

9

from having his costs reimbursed. See LaMark v. Hicks, No. 11–1098, 2012 WL 3292398, at *1

10

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2012) (“While defendants cannot be awarded attorneys’ fees as pro se

11

litigants, it nonetheless stands to reason that they can be awarded their costs and litigation

12

expenses under that statute”).

13
14
15
16
17
18

Mr. Lopez’s motion for costs is GRANTED in the amount of $4,000.
III.

CONCLUSION
Mr. Lopez motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED in the following

amounts: $1.50 for attorneys’ fees and $4,000 for costs.
This resolves ECF No. 508.
DATED: December 19, 2016.

19
20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10