Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02014/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02014-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 On September 10, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff on

all claims. The Clerk entered judgment the same day. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas Lee Horn, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2014-PHX-SMM 

ORDER

Currently pending before this Court are the Motions for Attorneys’ Fees and NonTaxable Costs filed by Defendant Jason M. Levine, M.D.(Doc. 221) and the Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees filed by pro se Plaintiff Douglas L. Horn (Doc. 240). 

Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 221)

Dr. Levine correctly states that under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 he is entitled to recover his

attorneys’ fees against Mr. Horn for prevailing against him on each of the 42 U.S.C. §1983

claims against him. Furthermore, in its September 2007 summary judgment order, the Court

ruled that Defendants are entitled to their fees and costs. (Doc. 218).1

Despite the requirements of LR Civ 54, that a responsive memorandum in opposition

to a motion for an of attorneys’ fees and related nontaxable expenses shall identify with

specificity all disputed issues of material fact and shall separately identify each disputed time

Case 2:04-cv-02014-SMM-LOA Document 243 Filed 02/14/08 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

27

28

2

The Court notes that Defendant’s Memorandum explains that one of the primary

reasons for this particular fee amount is the cost of reviewing and sometimes responding to

the hundred-plus pleadings, many frivolous, filed by Plaintiff in this case.

- 2 -

entry or expense time, Plaintiff failed to properly respond to Defendants’ motion with

specific objections.

Thus, after carefully reviewing Defendants’ memorandum setting forth his entitlement

and the reasonableness therein, the Court finds that Defendants’ request is reasonable under

the law and therefore awards Dr. Levine his attorneys’ fees in the full amount of

$33,3111.56, inclusive of expert fees.2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 240)

Pro se Plaintiff Douglas Horn contends that he should receive $54,000 in attorneys’

fee and court costs, despite the fact that he was not the prevailing party in the underlying suit.

Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any authority supporting his argument that he

is entitled to fees and costs, and the Court is unaware of any in existence to support the nonprevailing party in such a manner. Consequently, Mr. Horn’s Motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant Dr. Levine’s Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (Doc. 221).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

and Costs (Doc. 240).

DATED this 13th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-02014-SMM-LOA Document 243 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2