Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02403/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02403-8/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY C. ENGEL, No. 2:03-CV-2403-MCE-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL BARRY ET.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Mary C. Engel (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against

Defendants Michael Barry, Deputy Brian Hammer, Deputy William

Sowles, and Scott Sparks (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging

various civil rights violations under federal and state law. 

 Early in this proceeding, the Defendants moved the Court to

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim. The

Court dismissed certain of Plaintiff’s federal and state claims

but permitted several of her claims to proceed. Defendants’ then

brought a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff’s

remaining claims. On April 21, 2006, the Court granted

Defendants’ Motion as to all remaining federal claims and

dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 105 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

Unless otherwise noted, all further references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules” shall refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For purposes of this analysis, it is irrelevant whether 2

Plaintiff’s Motion was brought under Rule 59 or Rule 60. 

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 3

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

On May 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion styled “Motion to

Amend the Judgment.” Although motions to amend judgment normally

fall under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, Plaintiff based her Motion on 1

Rule 60. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the 2

Judgment on May 18, 2006.

On June 1, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Attorneys’

Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiff filed an opposition to

Defendants’ Motion and also requested the Court extend her

deadline to appeal pursuant to Rule 58(c)(2).3

ANALYSIS

1. Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

As a procedural matter, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees was untimely. Rule 54(d)(2)(B) states

that “unless otherwise provided by statute or order of the court,

the motion [for attorneys’ fees] must be filed no later than 14

days after entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)

(emphasis added). The Eastern District’s Local Rules qualify as

“standing court orders” for purposes of Rule 54(d). Eastwood v.

Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 1997).

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 105 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

3

Local Rule 54-293(a) stipulates that motions for awards of

attorneys’ fees must be filed “not later than thirty days after

entry of final judgment.” E.D. Cal. R. 54-293(a). While Rule 54

requires that Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees must be

filed within 14 days of final judgment, this Court’s Local Rules

provide otherwise and extend that period to 30 days. Because

final judgment occurred on May 2, 2006, Defendant’s Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees, filed June 1, 2006, was timely.

Turning to the merits of Defendant’s Motion, a defendant may

recover attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 only if the Court

finds that Plaintiff’s action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or

without foundation.” Saman v. Robbins, 173 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th

Cir. 1999). While the Court has concluded that Plaintiff’s

claims fail as a matter of law, the Court does not find that her

action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ fees is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Appeal

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s time to appeal the final

judgment has tolled. In fact, a notice of appeal must be filed

with the district court clerk within 30 days after the judgment

is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, a timely postjudgment motion may extend the deadline to appeal so that the

time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the

order disposing of the last such remaining motion. Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(4)(A).

///

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 105 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

4

Included in the list of post-judgment motions which may extend

the deadline to appeal are motions to amend the judgment under

Rule 59 and motions for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is

filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered. Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).

Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend the Judgment on May 1,

2006. As noted above, final judgment was entered on May 2, 2006. 

Clearly, Plaintiff’s Motion was filed no later than 10 days after

final judgment was entered. Because Plaintiff’s post-judgment

Motion was timely, the time to file an appeal did not begin until

the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion on May 18, 2006. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal filed on June 16, 2006,

was timely as it was within thirty days of this Court’s May 18,

2006, disposition of her Motion to Amend the Judgment. Because

the Court has concluded Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was timely,

the Court need not address Plaintiff’s request for an extension

to file her appeal under Rule 58(c)(2).

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fee is DENIED. The Court

deems Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal to have been timely filed.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2006

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 105 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

5

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02403-MCE -KJM Document 105 Filed 06/22/06 Page 5 of 5