Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559-19/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

ROBERT I. REESE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Deputy 

DUNCAN BROWN (Badge #1220);

Deputy ZACHARY ROSE (Badge 

#832),

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00559-GEB-KJN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff Robert I. Reese, Jr.

(“Reese”), filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, in which he argues 

he is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 

California Civil Code section 52.1(h). Specifically, Reese 

contends he satisfies the prevailing party requirement in each 

statute since he prevailed on his Fourth Amendment excessive 

force claim against Defendant Zachary Rose (“Rose”), and on his

California Bane Act claim against Defendant County of Sacramento 

and Defendant Rose. (Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees 5:5-18, ECF No. 202.)

However, on June 8, 2016, judgment was entered (ECF No. 

219) as follows: in favor of Rose on Reese’s Fourth Amendment

claim since Rose prevailed on his qualified immunity defense 

which immunizes him from liability on this claim, in favor of 

Defendant County of Sacramento on Reese’s Fourth Amendment 

municipal liability claim since the order filed on July 17, 2015 

summarily adjudicated this claim, and in favor of Defendant 

Duncan Brown on Reese’s Fourth Amendment claim since the jury’s 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 220 Filed 06/09/16 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

general verdict found Brown was not liable. (Order Amending 

Judgment 1:21-2:13, ECF No. 218.) Further, an amended judgment 

was entered in favor of Defendant Rose and Defendant County of 

Sacramento on Reese’s Bane Act claim, and judgment was entered in 

favor of Defendant Brown on Reese’s Bane Act claim since the 

jury’s general verdict found Brown was not liable. (Id.)

Therefore, Reese has not shown that the authority he

cites justifies his request for attorneys’ fees, and his motion 

is DENIED.

Dated: June 8, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 220 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2