Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0851-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Douglas Lee HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry CARTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15432.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
    Douglas Lee Horn, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.
    Lisa Parsons, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, Diana Day Ras-ner, Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson, P.C., Phoenix, AR, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Lee Horn, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment awarding $33,311.56 in attorney’s fees and costs to Defendant Levine pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. L.A. County Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 619 (9th Cir.1987). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

We vacate the judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs because there is no indication in the record that the district court considered Horn’s pro se status and financial resources. See id. at 620, 621 (requiring district courts to consider a plaintiffs pro se status in determining whether to award attorney’s fees to a defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and to consider the plaintiffs financial resources in determining the amount of the award).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.