Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02092/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02092-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO CUEVAS and HEATHER

BURLETTE,

2:04-CV-2092-MCE-GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On February 13, 2006, this Court granted summary judgment in 

favor of El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office (“Defendant El Dorado

County”), Sheriff Jeff Neves, Officer Brian Golmitz

(“Defendant Supervisors”) Officer Jon De Roco, Officer Richard

Horn, Officer Michael Cook, and Officer Christopher Starr

(“Defendant Officers”)(collectively “Defendants”) on ground that

Defendants did not violate Plaintiff Armando Cuevas (“Cuevas”) or

Plaintiff Heather Burlette’s (“Burlette”)(collectively

“Plaintiffs”) civil rights during the course of entering

Plaintiffs’ home and ultimately arresting Cuevas for battery on a

Case 2:04-cv-02092-MCE -GGH Document 79 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

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

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

peace officer. The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary 1

Judgment finding that qualified immunity protected Defendants

from Plaintiffs’ claims of unreasonable search and seizure under

the Fourth Amendment. In addition, the Court found no violation

of due process and no violation of Plaintiffs’ right to be free

from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Lastly, the

Court elected not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and, accordingly,

dismissed those claims without prejudice. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Defendants are now seeking

attorney’s fees and costs expended in defense of Plaintiffs’

claims in an amount of $68,434.72. For the reasons explained

below, Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied.

ANALYSIS

A prevailing defendant is entitled to attorney fees under 42

U.S.C. § 1988 only when the plaintiff’s claims are “groundless,

without foundation, frivolous, or unreasonable.” McCarthy v.

Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987). Section 1988 provides

for the award of attorney fees in any action or proceeding to

enforce specific federal statutes including § 1983. A case may

be deemed frivolous only when the “result is obvious or the ...

arguments of error are wholly without merit.” McConnell v.

Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir. 1981)(citation omitted). 

Case 2:04-cv-02092-MCE -GGH Document 79 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Contrary to Defendants’ contention, the Court finds that the

claims brought in this case were far from groundless or without

foundation. In fact, when suit was brought in this matter, the

law surrounding parole related searches was unsettled. See

Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). It was

only after the matter was submitted that the Ninth Circuit

clarified the probable cause standard in parole related searches

for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Id. While the Court

rejected Plaintiffs’ claims on various grounds, Defendants fall

far short of establishing an entitlement to attorney’s fees and

costs in this case.

In addition, the Court finds Defendants’ argument that equal

protection demands a contrary result unavailing. Defendants

contend that, as prevailing Defendants, they are deprived of

equal protection by the “automatic denial of attorney’s fees.” 

The denial of attorney’s fees in this case is not “automatic,”

but rather is a result of Defendants’ failure to show Plaintiffs’

claims were groundless, frivolous or unreasonable.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02092-MCE -GGH Document 79 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for

Attorney’s Fees and Costs is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02092-MCE -GGH Document 79 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 4