Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01130/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01130-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Tabula Rasa noticed its motion for attorneys' fees for

hearing on September 9, 2005, and Plaintiff's opposition was

therefore due on August 19, 2005. Walter Davis' two-page

declaration in opposition to the motion was not filed until August

22, 2005, and was not accompanied by either a stipulation or a

motion to change time as required by Local Rules 6-2 and 6-3. The

Court therefore will not consider the arguments in the Davis

Declaration, of which the only substantive point is Tabula Rasa's

failure to provide invoices generated by its attorneys. However,

the Court will not, as Tabula Rasa urges, grant its motion for

attorneys' fees simply because no timely opposition was filed. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY BUCHANAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; WAYNE TUCKER,

individually and in his capacity as

Chief Probation Officer for the

County of Alameda; and TABULA RASA

TREATMENT HOMES, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-1130 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT TABULA

RASA'S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS' FEES

Defendant Tabula Rasa Treatment Homes, Inc., (Tabula Rasa),

one of the prevailing parties in this action, moves pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988 for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of

$60,015.50. Counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey Buchanan has filed a

declaration in opposition to the motion.1 The matter was taken

under submission on the papers. 

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the

Case 4:04-cv-01130-CW Document 107 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Court DENIES Tabula Rasa's motion for attorneys' fees. 

 A district court may authorize an award of attorneys' fees to

a prevailing party in a civil rights action under the Civil Rights

Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. An award of

attorneys' fees may be made to a civil rights defendant only where

the court finds that the plaintiff's action was "unreasonable,

frivolous, meritless, or vexatious." Legal Services of Northern

California, Inc. v. Arnett, 114 F.3d 135, 141 (9th Cir. 1997). 

"Only in exceptional cases should defendants be awarded attorneys'

fees in civil rights cases." Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community

College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 202 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The background of this civil rights action is set forth in the

Court's July 21, 2005 order granting Defendants' motions for

summary judgment. Although Plaintiff's case was not meritorious,

the Court finds that he did not file this action frivolously. 

Plaintiff believed in good faith that Tabula Rasa administered

Paxil to him, that Paxil was not approved for juvenile use, and

that it caused him to be at increased risk for suicide. The Court

found that Plaintiff "failed to produce evidence sufficient to

raise a triable issue of material fact regarding Tabula Rasa's

deliberate indifference to him," and also failed to introduce

evidence of spoliation sufficient to create an adverse inference of

deliberate indifference. July 21, 2005 Order at 11-12. However,

lack of merit does not mean that Plaintiff's complaint as filed was

unreasonable, frivolous or groundless. Cf., e.g., Saman v.

Robbins, 173 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding abuse of

discretion where district court failed to award attorneys' fees in

Case 4:04-cv-01130-CW Document 107 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

civil rights case where defendant's involvement in case was very

limited); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 832 (9th Cir. 1995)

(upholding award of fees where attorney plaintiff knew or should

have known that municipal defendants were entitled to immunity);

Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1990)

(finding plaintiff had failed to conduct competent pre-filing

inquiry where undisputed facts showed defendant not involved in

alleged acts). Furthermore, Tabula Rasa has made no attempt,

except through attorney argument, to show that Plaintiff brought

this action in bad faith or purely out of a desire for settlement

money. Based on the facts of the case, it appears that Plaintiff

is a young man with mental health issues who is unlikely to have

the wherewithal to pay attorneys' fees. 

Tabula Rasa also asks the Court to tax attorneys' fees against

Plaintiff's counsel, but does not cite the statute under which it

makes this request. Section 1988 does not appear to provide for

such an award. The Court does have the inherent power to impose

sanctions against a lawyer who "willfully abuses judicial

processes." Roadway Express, Inc., v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766

(1980). In order to impose such a sanction, the Court must "make a

specific finding as to whether counsel's conduct in th[e] case

constituted or was tantamount to bad faith." Id. at 767. In

addition, the Court has statutory authority to hold counsel

personally liable for attorneys' fees as a sanction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1927. That statute provides, 

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any

court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so

multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and

Case 4:04-cv-01130-CW Document 107 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally

the excess costs, expenses, and attorney's fees reasonably

incurred because of such conduct.

Tabula Rasa has shown no grounds on which the Court could make a

specific finding that Plaintiff's counsel's conduct was tantamount

to bad faith. Nor has Tabula Rasa shown that counsel's conduct has

"unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplied the proceedings. 

Therefore, the Court declines to award attorneys' fees against

Plaintiff's attorney. 

For these reasons, the Court concludes that this is not an

exceptional civil rights action so meritless as to warrant an award

of fees to Tabula Rasa. Tabula Rasa's motion is DENIED (Docket No.

160). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/5/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01130-CW Document 107 Filed 10/05/05 Page 4 of 4