Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02081-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO MAYS, RICKY 

RICHARDSON, JENNIFER BOTHUN, 

ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, and 

CODY GARLAND, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02081-TLN-KJN

[CLASS ACTION]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

EXPENSES

Plaintiffs Lorenzo Mays, Ricky Richardson, Jennifer Bothun, Armani Lee, Leertese 

Beirge, and Cody Garland (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are state prisoners, proceeding through 

counsel. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 9, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. (ECF No. 105.) On 

December 19, 2019, the parties filed a joint statement of non-opposition to the findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 108.) 

///

Case 2:18-cv-02081-TLN-CSK Document 111 Filed 01/13/20 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

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 9, 2019 (ECF No. 105), are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $2,100,000.00 for reasonable attorney’s fees, 

expenses, and costs. Payment shall be made in two installments: (1) the first installment in the 

amount of $1,050,000.00 by no later than January 31, 2020, and (2) the second installment in the 

amount of $1,050,000.00 by no later than July 31, 2020; and

3. Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses up to 

$250,000.00 per year for monitoring of implementation of the Consent Decree and Remedial 

Plan. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-02081-TLN-CSK Document 111 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2