Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02701/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02701-4/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Charles Edward Byrd, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV04-2701-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion/Application for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 174). 

This motion includes fees claimed by Fennemore Craig, P.C. (trial counsel) and by Mr. 

Jarrett Green (counsel on appeal). Defendants and Fennemore Craig have since settled 

their fees dispute, mooting that portion of the motion. (Doc. 179.) Mr. Green continues 

to claim his fees. 

In the Ninth Circuit, a party/attorney seeking fees incurred on appeal must first 

move the appellate court for those fees. Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 948 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Gametech Int’l, Inc. v. Trend Gaming Sys., L.L.C., 380 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 

1093–94 (D. Ariz. 2005); Nader v. Brewer, No. CV-04-1699-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 

811450, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2009). Such a motion was required within 14 days of 

the mandate. Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6(a). The Ninth Circuit, in its discretion, could 

then refer the motion to the district court. Id. 39-1.8. 

This Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s docket shows that Byrd filed no request 

for fees incurred on appeal, either as part of his briefs or separately. The mandate is also 

silent about fees. 

Case 2:04-cv-02701-NVW Document 181 Filed 12/30/11 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Apart from this procedural impediment, Mr. Green would be entitled to a 

substantial award of fees. But this Court may not make such an award unless the Court 

of Appeals modifies its mandate to allow consideration of such a request. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion/Application for Attorneys’ 

Fees (Doc. 174) is DENIED. 

Dated: December 30, 2011. 

Case 2:04-cv-02701-NVW Document 181 Filed 12/30/11 Page 2 of 2