Case ID: f-appx_431/html/0528-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory Tyree BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dean MASON, Grievance Program Specialist, Doc; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-36038.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 03, 2011.
    Gregory Tyree Brown, Monroe, WA, pro se.
    Sara Di Vittorio, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Tyree Brown, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment requiring each party to bear its own costs in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his personal property was confiscated in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the legal question of whether a party was the prevailing party, Kimbrough v. California, 609 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir.2010), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding costs, Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054, 1070 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court entered judgment for defendants on Brown’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages and dismissed Brown’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot. As a result, Brown was not a prevailing party, see Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (party who does not obtain judicial relief is not a prevailing party, even if party achieves its desired result because the commencement of the lawsuit causes the defendants to voluntarily alter conduct), and the district court was not required to explain its order that each party bear its own costs, see Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir.2000) (a district court must only specify its reasons for denying costs to a prevailing party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1)).

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