Stone vs. Cate, et al.,

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/29/2011 DENYING 38 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Tammie Scheid. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

EDITH STONE,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

TAMMIE SCHEID,

11

Defendant.
________________________________

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-2139-GEB-GGH
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

13

Defendant Tammie Scheid seeks $54,843.00 in attorneys’ fees

14

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This action was decided in Scheid’s favor when

15

the Court sua sponte granted Scheid judgment on the pleadings, instead

16

of reaching the merits of Scheid’s then pending summary judgment motion

17

on all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff alleged in her Complaint that

18

she was denied due process and equal protection of the law based on her

19

race when her employer denied her information regarding how to renew her

20

teaching credential, so that she could retain her teaching position, in

21

the situation where her employer gave that information to a Caucasian

22

teacher.

23

42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) prescribes in relevant part: “In any

24

action or proceeding to enforce . . . [42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985] . . .

25

the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a

26

reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” Under this statute, “a

27

prevailing defendant should not routinely be awarded attorneys’ fees

28

simply because [s]he has succeeded, but rather only where the action is

1

1

found to be unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious.” Vernon v.

2

City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1402 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and

3

internal quotation marks omitted). “Attorneys’ fees in civil rights

4

cases

5

circumstances.” Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1990).

should

only

be

awarded

to

a

defendant

in

exceptional

6

Scheid argues she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees

7

since: “[t]here are absolutely no facts to support any of Plaintiff

8

Stone’s theories of liability against Defendant Scheid[, and i]n fact

9

the court took the somewhat unusual step of sua sponte finding that this

10

case was appropriate for issuance of a judgment on the pleadings.”

11

However, Scheid’s conclusory arguments do not satisfy her burden under

12

the applicable standard. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

13

Dated:

September 29, 2011

14
15
16

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2