Hoffmann v. Lassen County et al.
Filing
43
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/22/2018 RECOMMENDING the 39 Motion for Attorney Fees be denied. Referred to District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
KASEY F. HOFFMANN,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-00946-JAM-AC
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for attorney fees. ECF No. 39.
17
Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, and accordingly this motion was referred to the
18
undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned
19
recommends that defendants’ motion be DENIED.
20
I.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
21
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, filed a civil rights complaint on May 4, 2016, alleging that
22
his minor son was improperly “detained” and arguing that plaintiff was improperly denied child
23
custody. See ECF No. 1 at 3. On May 19, 2016, plaintiff made a motion to amend his complaint
24
(ECF No. 5), which the court granted (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
25
June 24, 2016. ECF No. 8. It was dismissed on screening, with leave to amend, on September 9,
26
2016. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 19, 2016. ECF No.
27
10. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed on screening with leave to amend. ECF No.
28
11. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on November 22, 2016. ECF No. 12. The Third
1
1
2
Amended Complaint passed screening and was served upon the defendants. ECF No. 13.
Defendants moved to dismiss on March 16, 2017 on the grounds that plaintiff failed to
3
join indispensable parties. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 23), which was
4
granted on September 28, 2017 (ECF No. 38) upon the adoption of the undersigned’s Findings
5
and Recommendations (ECF No. 35). Judgment was entered against plaintiff on September 28,
6
2017. ECF No. 38.
7
8
9
10
11
II.
THE MOTION
On October 10, 2016, defendants moved for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 41) and
defendants submitted a reply (ECF No. 42).
III.
ANALYSIS
12
Rule 54(d) provides for a prevailing party to seek costs, and if a statute so provides,
13
attorneys’ fees within 14 days of the entry of judgment. The statute defendants rely on, 42
14
U.S.C.A. § 1988, states in relevant part that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision
15
of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . .the court, in its discretion,
16
may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of
17
the costs[.]” An award of fees to defendants, however, is only appropriate when “the plaintiff's
18
action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective
19
bad faith.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980). This is a stringent standard: “[t]he plaintiff's
20
action must be meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without foundation.” Id. The
21
Supreme Court has made clear that, in the case of uncounseled prisoners, “attorney’s fees should
22
rarely be awarded.” Id. at 15. “The fact that a prisoner's complaint, even when liberally
23
construed, cannot survive a motion to dismiss does not, without more, entitle the defendant to
24
attorney's fees. An unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to recognize
25
subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims.” Id.
26
An award of fees is not warranted in this case. First, the motion is untimely as it was filed
27
more than 14 days after entry of judgment. Compare ECF No. 38 and ECF No. 39. Further, the
28
court rejects defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s case was frivolous in light of the status of his
2
1
state custody proceedings. This argument requires the court to assume that plaintiff understood
2
the implications of the state case, and continued to pursue his federal case while understanding
3
that it was meritless. Indeed, defendants succeeded in having plaintiff’s case dismissed on
4
technical legal grounds, not the grounds upon which they now assert made plaintiff’s case
5
meritless from the start. See ECF No. 35. This case does not meet the demanding standard set
6
forth in Hughes, and an award of fees and/or costs is not appropriate.
7
Although there should be no award of fees in this case, plaintiff is nonetheless cautioned
8
that filing meritless § 1983 cases can, under appropriate circumstances, lead to an award of
9
attorneys’ fees to a defendant who wins the case.
10
11
12
IV.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (ECF
No.39) be DENIED.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one
15
(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
17
Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file objections within the
18
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
19
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
DATED: January 22, 2018
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?