Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01009/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01009-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN MENZIES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1009 DFL KJM PS

vs.

MARY MUSE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is pending before the court. Upon review

of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel,

upon in camera review of billing records and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT

FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

Defendants El Dorado County Grand Jury, Warren, Lacy, Roth, Brunner and

Gumpert move for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That section provides in relevant

part: “. . . In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of . . . 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 - 1983 

. . ., the Court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a

reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01009-DFL -KJM Document 86 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The moving defendants specifically contended in their motion to dismiss that all claims

alleged against them were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Defendants’

Memorandum, filed July 2, 2004, at 7:12-9:25.

2

Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 See Findings and Recommendations filed

January 13, 2005; Order filed March 22, 2005. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to make an

award of fees under section 1988. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-93 (9th Cir. 1995)

(under Feldman, court was without subject matter jurisdiction and no award of attorneys’ fees

under section 1988 could be made). Defendants do not move on any alternative basis for

attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion for

attorneys’ fees be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties 

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

menzies.fee

Case 2:04-cv-01009-DFL -KJM Document 86 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2