Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00252/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00252-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN PRIEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-02-0252 GEB PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

 Defendants County of El Dorado and Paul Sutherland, Deputy

District Attorney for El Dorado County, seek an award of

attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants were

represented in this action by Franklin G. Gumpert. 

Plaintiff has filed no response to defendants’ motion, which

the court construes as acquiescence thereto. E. D. Cal. L. R.

78-230(c), 11-110, and 83-183. An award of attorney’s fees is

also warranted on the merits.

Pursuant to a criminal jury trial concluding June 5, 2002,

Case 2:02-cv-00252-GEB-PAN Document 75 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

plaintiff was convicted of violating California Business &

Professions Code § 9884.6, requiring valid registration of

automotive repair dealers. Plaintiff began this action January

31, 2002, pro se, alleging violation of his federal civil rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on claims defendants acted with

“terrorism under color of law” to violate his Fourth Amendment

rights and pursue his criminal prosecution. 

Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants

Sutherland and El Dorado County on March 1, 2004. Final judgment

was entered in favor of all defendants on July 23, 2004. 

42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides in pertinent part:

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 

1985, and 1986 of this title, . . . the court, 

in its discretion, may allow the prevailing 

party, other than the United States, a reasonable 

attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . ..

An award of attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 applies

differently to a prevailing plaintiff than to a prevailing

defendant. Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1402

(9th Cir. 1994). While prevailing plaintiffs should ordinarily

recover attorneys’ fees unless such an award would be unjust, a

district court should award attorney’s fees to a prevailing civil

rights defendant only if the plaintiff’s action was unreasonable,

frivolous, without merit, or vexatious. Id.; see also

Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n,

434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978) (Title VII case); Hughes v. Rowe, 449

U.S. 5, 14-16 (1980)(applying Christianburg to a 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Case 2:02-cv-00252-GEB-PAN Document 75 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

case). This standard adheres to Congress’ policy of promoting

vigorous prosecution of civil rights violations under section

1983. Miller v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, 827 F.2d

617, 619 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, a district court may award fees

to a prevailing civil rights defendant only if the action is

meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without

foundation or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it

clearly became groundless.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 14;

Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422. 

These requirements are strictly construed in cases where the

plaintiff has proceeded without counsel. Miller, 827 F.2d at 620

(citing Hughes, 449 U.S. at 15-16). In such cases, district

courts must consider two additional factors in determining

whether to assess attorney’s fees: (1) the plaintiff’s ability

to recognize the lack of merit in his claims (2) and the

plaintiff’s financial resources. Id., at 620-621. While an

award of attorney’s fees for a frivolous lawsuit may be necessary

to fulfill the deterrent purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, any award

should not subject the plaintiff to financial ruin. Id. at 621,

n. 5. 

Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants were meritless,

unreasonable and vexatious. Although he proceeded without

counsel, the unambiguous registration requirement of Calif. Bus.

& Prof. Code § 9884.6 rendered plaintiff’s challenge patently

unreasonable. Legal representation was not required to inform

plaintiff his challenge was without merit. Miller, 827 F.2d at

Case 2:02-cv-00252-GEB-PAN Document 75 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

620. Plaintiff’s additional allegations his civil rights were

violated and he was subject to a county-sponsored conspiracy to

terrorize law-abiding citizens was plainly vexatious. No good

whatever was served by requiring a defense to these claims. 

Thus, I find the deterrent purposes of section 1988 will be

served by awarding fees in this case. 

Defendants seek $17,610.20, representing $16,692.50 for

109.4 hours work at the hourly rate of $150.00-$175.00, and

$917.70 in costs, representing the fee of the court reporter to

record and transcribe plaintiff’s deposition testimony. The

hourly rates are reasonable and review of counsel’s

contemporaneous time records shows the tasks for which they

billed were reasonable. Applying the lodestar method of

calculation endorsed in § 1988 requests (see, e.g., Miller, 827

F.2d at 621, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)

(multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a

reasonable hourly rate)), I find the fee request objectively

reasonable.

Plaintiff has had the opportunity to demonstrate limited

financial resources make the award sought unreasonable and said

nothing. The court construes plaintiff’s silence about the

matter as an admission that such grounds for resisting

defendants’ motion do not exist. 

Accordingly, I recommend defendants’ motion for attorney’s

fees be granted and that judgment be entered in their favor for

$17,610.20 attorney fees and costs. 

Case 2:02-cv-00252-GEB-PAN Document 75 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 18, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00252-GEB-PAN Document 75 Filed 05/19/05 Page 5 of 5