Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01566-33/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

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

JUAN CARLOS VALADEZ )

LOPEZ, ) 

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 )

 v. )

 )

 )

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.) 

 )

 Defendants. )

 )

________________________)

CV 07-1566-LEW

ORDER Re: DEFENDANTS

DONALD LOWN AND

RICHARD VAN ZANDT’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY

FEES [191] 

Currently before the Court is Defendants Donald

Lown and Richard Van Zandt’s Motion for Attorney Fees

[191]. The Court took this matter under submission on

January 19, 2010. Having considered all papers and

arguments, THE COURT NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01566-LEW Document 201 Filed 02/05/10 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 DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’

Fees. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims were

reasonable at the time the Complaint was filed. 

Furthermore, pursuant to Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5

(1980), the mere fact that Plaintiff’s allegations were

insufficient to require a trial in this matter does not

mean the claims were groundless or without foundation. 

Therefore, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, it is within

this Court’s discretion to determine whether an award

of attorneys’ fees is appropriate in this matter. The

Court hereby declines to award any such fees and DENIES

Defendants’ Motion.

DATED: February 5, 2010

IT IS SO ORDERED 

 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

 Senior U.S. District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01566-LEW Document 201 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2