Hoffmann v. Lassen County et al.

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/2018 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43 ADOPTED in PART and MODIFIES in PART; Defendants' 39 Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KASEY F. HOFFMANN,

12

2:16-cv-00946-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER

LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

18

action seeking relief under The Indian Child Welfare Act

19

(“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–63.

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The matter was referred to a

22

Defendants move for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 39, following

23

dismissal of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint for failure to

24

join necessary parties.

25

judge filed findings and recommendations, ECF No. 43, which were

26

served on all parties.

27

findings and recommendations.

28

///

On January 23, 2018, the magistrate

Defendants filed objections to those
Obj., ECF No. 46.

1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de

3

novo review of this case.

4

in part the findings and recommendations as to Defendants’ motion

5

for attorney’s fees.

The Court adopts in part and modifies

6
7

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

8

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings or

9

recommendations, the district court makes a de novo determination

10

of those portions to which objection is made.

11

§ 636(b)(1).

12

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

13

magistrate judge,” and receive further evidence or send the

14

matter back to the magistrate judge with instructions.

15

28 U.S.C.

The district court “may accept, reject, or modify,

Id.

De novo review requires the court to “review the matter

16

anew, the same as if it had not been heard before, and as if no

17

decision previously had been rendered.”

18

Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006).

19

hear any witnesses or hold a hearing of the case, so long as it

20

arrives at an independent conclusion about the portions of the

21

report to which objections were made.

22

874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989).

Freeman v. DirecTV,
The court need not

United States v. Remsing,

23
24
25

II.

ANALYSIS

Defendants object to both parts of the magistrate judge’s

26

reasoning for denying them attorney’s fees.

27

Defendants assert that the magistrate judge was incorrect in

28

finding that their motion was untimely, because it complied with
2

Opp’n at 1.

First,

1

Local Rule 293(a).

2

magistrate judge incorrectly relied on Plaintiff’s subjective

3

belief that the complaint was filed in good faith.

Id. at 2–3.

Second, Defendants assert the

Id. at 3–4.

4

A.

Defendants’ Motion Was Timely

5

Defendants’ first argument as to timeliness is well taken.

6

Defendants filed their motion for attorney’s fees 28 days after

7

entry of judgment.

8

Defendants filed the motion beyond the 14-day period called for

9

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B).

The magistrate judge accurately assessed that

Nevertheless,

10

Defendants persuasively argued that Local Rule 293(a) extends the

11

filing period to 28 days after judgment.

12

under Rule 54(d) applies in the absence of a statute or court

13

order providing otherwise.

14

Rule 293(a) is a standing court order for purposes of Rule 54(d),

15

Eastwood v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249, 1257 (9th Cir.

16

1997), rendering Defendants’ motion timely.

The 14-day deadline

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B).

Local

17

B.

The Factors In This Case Weigh Against A Fee Award

18

Defendants next assert that the magistrate judge should not

19

have considered Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs when determining

20

whether to award fees.

21

district court has discretion to refuse or award costs.

22

v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016).

23

defendant in a civil rights case may receive a fee award if the

24

plaintiff’s action was “unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or

25

vexatious.”

26

2007).

27

Supreme Court has stated that limitations on awarding fees “apply

28

with special force” and “fees should rarely be awarded against

Opp’n at 3–4.

In the Ninth Circuit, the
Draper

A prevailing

Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 666 (9th Cir.

Where the plaintiff is an uncounseled prisoner, the

3

1
2

such plaintiffs.”

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980).

Defendants argue fees must be awarded because one of the

3

facts alleged—that Plaintiff’s parental rights were terminated—

4

was demonstrably false, and thus they conclude Plaintiff’s case

5

was entirely frivolous.

6

Plaintiff’s case because it was frivolous or wholly without

7

merit.

8

prejudice, for failure to join a necessary party pursuant to

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and (19).

Yet the Court did not dismiss

Rather, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case, without

Based on the

10

material submitted, Defendants have not carried their burden of

11

showing that Plaintiff’s actions were objectively unreasonable,

12

frivolous, meritless, or vexatious.

13
14

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees is
denied.

15
16

III. CONCLUSION

17

For the reasons set forth above,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

20

The Court adopts in part and modifies in part the

findings and recommendations, ECF No. 43, filed January 23, 2018;

21

2.

22

denied.

23

Dated:

Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 39, is

May 2, 2018.

24
25
26
27
28
4