Allen v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 162

ORDER Denying 101 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 8/30/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

RONALD LEE ALLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; )
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA; DR.
)
MCGROREY; NAPHCARE; KITE NURSE
)
CORNELIUS; NURSE NORMA; REBECCA )
NEWMAN, R.N.; DR. RUSSO; and SHERIFF )
GILLESPIE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-00857-RLH-GWF
ORDER
(Motion for Attorney’s Fees–#101)

Before the Court is Defendants Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”) and

20

Sheriff Gillespie’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#101, filed Feb. 3, 2011). Plaintiff Ronald Lee

21

Allen did not file an opposition.

22

Allen brought this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

23

his constitutional rights were violated while detained at the CCDC. This Court subsequently

24

entered an order dismissing Allen’s claims against CCDC and Gillespie. The Court found that

25

CCDC, as a building, is not subject to liability, and that because Allen made no direct allegation

26

against Gillespie he failed to state a valid claim for relief. CCDC and Gillespie now ask the Court

AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which gives the Court discretion to

2

award attorney’s fees to a party prevailing in a § 1983 action. CCDC and Gillespie argue that

3

because the Court dismissed Allen’s § 1983 claims against them they are prevailing parties under

4

§ 1988, entitling them to attorney’s fees.

5

However, the Court finds that an award of attorney’s fees is not proper under the

6

circumstances. The Court has recently permitted Allen to file an amended complaint in which he

7

renamed Gillespie as a Defendant. Therefore, while Gillespie may have prevailed on his earlier

8

motion to dismiss, the Court finds that he has not yet prevailed in this case. In addition, Allen’s

9

claims against CCDC and Gillespie were made when he had no counsel. Thus, although his initial

10

allegations against CCDC and Gillespie were technically insufficient that does not mean that

11

Allen’s claims are frivolous or unreasonable. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its

12

discretion to award attorney’s fees to CCDC and Gillespie.

13

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants CCDC and Gillespie’s Motion for

15
16

Attorneys’ Fees (#101) is DENIED.
Dated: August 30, 2011

17

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2