Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0936-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donald LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon GILL and Lane County Sheriff's Office, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-35669
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017  Portland, Oregon
    Filed May 10, 2017
    Marianne G. Dugan, Attorney, Eugene, OR, Melissa. Dorothy Wischerath, Law Office of M.D. Wischerath, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Stephen E. Dingle, Sebastian Tapia, Lane County Office of Legal Counsel Courthouse/PSB, Eugene, OR, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: BYBEE and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      
         The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donald Long prevailed after a jury trial in this 42 U.S.C. § 1988 suit against the Lane County Sheriffs Office (“LCSO”) and a deputy sheriff arising out of the towing of Long’s truck. After the district court amended its judgment to reduce the damages and declined to award the full amount of counsel fees Long sought, he appealed. We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting LCSO’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment. See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255-56 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam). The jury made separate damage awards under both of Long’s theories seeking to impose liability on the LCSO under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). But Long admits he advanced only one Fourteenth Amendment claim, and therefore was entitled to recover only once. See Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com, Ltd., 762 F.3d 829, 847-48 (9th Cir. 2014).

2. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorney’s fees to award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The court need only award fees “that it deems reasonable,” and may award less than the amount requested if it gives “a specific explanation” for doing so. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court reasonably found that this case was “anything but complex,” and that the results obtained did not require two attorneys.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.