Case Name: Louis SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants- Appellees, and Norman Hickey, in his official capacity as Chief Administrative Officer for the County of San Diego, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 103 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 02-57034
Parties: Louis SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants— Appellees, and Norman Hickey, in his official capacity as Chief Administrative Officer for the County of San Diego, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 115–119

Head Matter:
Louis SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants— Appellees, and Norman Hickey, in his official capacity as Chief Administrative Officer for the County of San Diego, Defendant.
No. 02-57034.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 3, 2004.
Decided June 23, 2004.
O’Scannlain, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion.
Jeffrey D. Paape, Esq., Anderson & Kriger, La Mesa, CA, Louis E. Goebel, Esq., Law Offices of Louis E. Goebel, San Diego, CA, Kenneth J. Chesebro, Esq., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John Sansome, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Morris G. Hill, Esq., Office of the County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees and Defendant.
Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Because Schneider's efforts in litigating the prejudgment interest and nominal damages proceedings earned him an additional recovery of $17,703.66, the district court erred in concluding that he was not a "prevailing party" in these proceedings. See Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). The district court treated Schneider's entitlement to fees as foreclosed by our denial of his request for attorney's fees and costs on appeal in case nos. 00-55798 and 00-56329, in which he did not prevail. In doing so, the district court apparently overlooked our order in case no. 00-55709 in which, instead of denying Schneider's motion for attorney's fees and expenses, we referred his motion to the district court for consideration.
We reverse the order denying Schneider's motion for fees and expenses, and remand the case to the district court for consideration of Schneider's motion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.