Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00165-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peg Borman
Defendant
Fruit Growers Supply Co.
Defendant
Hancock Timber Resource Group
Defendant
Hearst Corp
Defendant
Robert Raffaelly
Plaintiff
Roseburg Forest Products Co.
Defendant
Charles Schnepp
Plaintiff
Sierra Pacific Industries
Defendant
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
Defendant
Timber Products Co.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RAFFAELLY and No. CIV.S-06-0165 FCD DAD PS 

CHARLES SCHNEPP,

Plaintiffs,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on September 15, 2006,

for hearing on defendant County of Siskiyou’s motion for attorney’s

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

At the hearing on the motion, Philip B. Price appeared on

behalf of defendant County of Siskiyou. There was no appearance on

behalf of defendants Sierra Pacific Industries; Fruit Growers Supply

Company; The Hearst Corporation; Roseburg Forest Products Co.; Timber

Products Company; and Hancock Timber Resource Group, although each of

these defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition to County

Case 2:06-cv-00165-FCD-DAD Document 79 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 4
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

of Siskiyou’s motion. There also was no appearance on behalf of the

only other named defendant, Peg Borman, an employee of the United

States Department of Agriculture Forest Service who has been sued in

her official capacity as the Forest Supervisor of the Klamath

National Forest.

Plaintiffs Robert Raffaelly and Charles Schnepp, proceeding

pro se, appeared at the hearing on their own behalf. Plaintiffs also

have filed opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees.

Having considered all written materials filed in connection

with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for the reasons set

forth below, the undersigned will recommend that the motion for

attorney’s fees be denied.

Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing their complaint

on January 25, 2006. The complaint contained federal claims under 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. By order filed August 2, 2006, this action

was dismissed as to defendant County of Siskiyou, and most of the

other defendants, with judgment being entered in defendants’ favor on

August 15, 2006.

Defendant County of Siskiyou now has moved for attorney’s

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides in relevant 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 .....” 42

U.S.C. § 1988(b).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00165-FCD-DAD Document 79 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Since County of Siskiyou is the prevailing party, the court

has discretion to award it attorney’s fees under § 1988. Sotomura v.

County of Hawaii, 679 F.2d 152 (9th Cir. 1982). However, a

prevailing defendant in a civil rights case is entitled to attorney’s

fees only where the plaintiff's action was “frivolous, unreasonable,

or without foundation.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.

412, 421 (1978); Cooper v. Dupnik, 924 F.2d 1520, 1537 (9th Cir.

1991); U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 647-48 (9th

Cir. 1986). This standard is interpreted narrowly in cases involving

pro se plaintiffs. Miller v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Educ., 827

F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir. 1987). A court should award attorney’s fees

to defendants under § 1988 only in exceptional circumstances.

Mitchell v. Los Angeles Comm. College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 202 (9th

Cir. 1988).

As demonstrated in the Findings and Recommendations filed

July 12, 2006, and Order adopting those Findings and Recommendations

filed August 2, 2006, plaintiffs’ theory of recovery against

defendant County of Siskiyou lacked merit. Moreover, this action 

repeats the allegations of a virtually identical action brought

earlier by plaintiff Raffaelly. (See Raffaelly v. Sierra Pacific

Industries, et al., No. CIV.S-02-2356 FCD DAD PS.) Nonetheless, the

undersigned observes that plaintiffs, in both their papers and during

their telephonic appearances before the court, appeared to be wellintentioned and to have a good faith belief, albeit misguided, in the

merits of their action. Considering the pro se status of plaintiffs

as well as the manner in which they conducted themselves in this

Case 2:06-cv-00165-FCD-DAD Document 79 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 4
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

litigation, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of the

doubt in this regard and to therefore recommend that the motion for

attorney’s fees be denied. See Miller, 827 F.2d at 620 (“[P]ro se

plaintiffs cannot simply be assumed to have the same ability as a

plaintiff represented by counsel to recognize the objective merit (or

lack of merit) of a claim.”)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant County

of Siskiyou’s motion for attorney’s fees be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within five (5) days after

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 15, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\raffaelly0165.f&r.fees

Case 2:06-cv-00165-FCD-DAD Document 79 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 4