Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01450/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01450-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

JACQUELINE GAINES and OLYMPIA 

MORRIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY CHILD 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCY, 

an agency of the County of 

Sacramento; ANN EDWARDS, in 

her individual and 

professional capacities; 

SANDRA THOMPSON, in her 

individual and professional 

capacities; SHAUNTE DERRICK, 

in her individual and 

professional capacities; and 

SANTRICE DAVIS, in her 

individual and professional 

capacities,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-01450-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER 42 

U.S.C. § 1988 AND SANCTIONS 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1927, AND 

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ BILL OF 

COSTS UNDER RULE 54(d)

Following entry of summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants, each Defendant filed a motion for an award of

attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against Plaintiffs 

Jacqueline Gaines (“Jacqueline”) and Olympia Morris (“Olympia”),

Case 2:12-cv-01450-GEB-EFB Document 58 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

and for an order requiring Plaintiffs’ attorneys to be liable for 

the attorneys’ fee award as sanctions imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 

1927.

1 Each Defendant also seeks costs. Defendants argue:

[they are] entitled to an award of attorneys’ 

fees based on the fact that forcing

Defendants to file a [m]otion for [s]ummary 

[j]udgment that Plaintiffs did not intend to 

oppose was unreasonable, frivolous, 

meritless, and vexatious and for Plaintiffs’ 

counsel’s subjective bad faith in continuing 

to pursue this lawsuit after it became clear 

that it was meritless.

(Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Attorneys’ Fees (“Mot.”) 1:28-2:3, ECF 

No. 49-1.)

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ requests for fees and 

costs, rejoining: “[Plaintiffs] did not oppose the [summary 

judgment motion] only because they lacked the funds to do so.” 

(Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. Attorneys’ Fees (“Opp’n”) 3:20-23, 

ECF No. 52.) Plaintiffs also argue in their opposition that their 

“inability to afford to pay any attorneys’ fees or costs to the 

[D]efendants is manifest,” (id. 4:18-19), as “[P]laintiffs are 

indigent.” (Id. 16:22.) Further, Plaintiffs assert Olympia “has 

expressed suicidal ideation to her therapist, she eventually 

dropped out of the school she was attending, . . . she has now 

gone missing[, and h]er therapist has expressed grave concern for 

[her].” (Id. 10:4-7.) Plaintiffs also assert: Jacqueline “has 

suffered disc inflammation related to . . . stress and resulting 

severe back pain for which she has been required to undergo 

multiple surgeries[,] . . . has been confined to bed rest[,] 

. . . . and [is] living on a meager income.” (Id. 10:13-18.) 

 

1 Defendant Santrice Davis filed a separate motion for attorneys’ fees. 

Since both motions raise the same arguments, they are considered together.

Case 2:12-cv-01450-GEB-EFB Document 58 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendants did not respond to these assertions in their 

reply brief; therefore, these assertions are treated as being 

true. In light of each Plaintiff’s unchallenged financial 

situation, each Plaintiff lacks the ability to pay attorneys’

fees and costs, and is not required to do so under 42 U.S.C. § 

1988 and Rule 54(d), respectively.

Further, although it is questionable why Plaintiffs’ 

attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as counsel when Plaintiffs

were faced with a dispositive summary judgment motion, 

Plaintiffs’ argument that they lacked the financial resources to 

develop a more substantive litigation posture is not so lacking 

in credence that it exposes Plaintiffs’ attorneys to sanctions 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

For the stated reasons, each Defendant’s motion is 

denied, and Defendants’ Bill of Costs is also denied.

Dated: August 21, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-01450-GEB-EFB Document 58 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 3