(PC) Holtsinger v. Voros, et al, No. 2:2003cv00732 - Document 355 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 345 Motion to Amend the Judgment and granting 346 Motion for Attorney Fees signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/2/10: Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $750.00 in attorney's fees. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Holtsinger v. Voros, et al Doc. 355 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HOLTSINGER, No. 2:03-cv-00732-MCE-CMK 12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. 14 TANYA VOROS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ----oo0oo---In bringing the present Motion to Alter or Amend the 18 Judgment, Plaintiff asks this Court to increase the award in his 19 favor to at least $5,000 in compensatory damages pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 21 Motion, Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1988, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), and Local Rule 293. 23 Additionally, by separate For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter 24 or Amend the Judgment will be denied. 25 Attorney’s Fees will be granted.1 Plaintiff’s Motion for 26 27 28 1 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230 (g). 1 Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND 1 2 3 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought this civil rights 4 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5 denied medical treatment by Defendant Voros following an assault 6 by at least four other inmates. 7 Plaintiff claims he sustained injuries and was exposed to the 8 blood of another inmate. 9 Plaintiff alleges he was As a result of that assault, Following Defendant Voros’ failure to appear for her 10 deposition, fact establishing sanctions were issued finding 11 liability on her part for deliberate indifference towards 12 Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 13 trial were the damages, if any, owed to Plaintiff. 14 sought both compensatory and punitive damages for Eighth 15 Amendment violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as 16 reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 17 The only issue remaining for Plaintiff The matter came on for court trial on March 15, 2010, 18 against Defendant Tanya Voros, only inasmuch as Plaintiff had 19 previously dismissed his claims against all other named 20 Defendants. 21 Voros. 22 No appearance was made on behalf of Defendant Tanya Following the trial, this Court entered judgment in favor of 23 Plaintiff and against Defendant Voros. 24 awarded for Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00. 25 declined to award any punitive damages. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Compensatory damages were The Court STANDARD 1 2 A. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 3 4 A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless 5 extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was 6 clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice. 7 Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816, 8 (1988). 9 case doctrine. This principle is generally embodied in the law of the That doctrine counsels against reopening 10 questions once resolved in ongoing litigation. 11 Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 12 1989). 13 has discretion to reconsider its prior decisions. 14 Pyramid Lake Nonetheless, in certain limited circumstances, a court A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule 15 is construed as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under 16 Rule 59(e). 17 1995). 18 motion if filed within twenty-eight days of the judgment being 19 entered. 20 reconsideration of a final judgement and was timely filed, the 21 Court will treat it as a Rule 59(e) motion. Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Since this motion is seeking 22 Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration 23 pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate only where 1) the court is 24 presented with newly discovered evidence; 2) the court committed 25 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or 26 3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. 27 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 28 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations and quotations omitted). 3 School 1 Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order, or belief that the 2 court is wrong in its decision, are not grounds for relief under 3 Rule 59(e). 4 B. 5 Motion for Attorney’s Fees 6 7 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) authorizes the court, in its discretion 8 to award a “reasonable” attorney fee” to the prevailing party in 9 a case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 54(d)(2) provides that such claims shall be made by 11 motion. 12 ANALYSIS 13 A. 14 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 15 16 Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) are 17 addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Turner 18 v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th 19 Cir. 2003). 20 its judgment because he alleges this Court “committed clear error 21 in completely omitting any findings based on the medical 22 testimony.” 23 Plaintiff seeks the court to include is not, however, newly 24 discovered evidence. 25 intervening change in controlling law. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Plaintiff requests that this Court alter or amend (Pl.’s Mot. to Am. 2:16-18.) The evidence the Nor does the Plaintiff assert any 4 1 Instead, according to the 2 error by failing to mention, in its Findings of Fact and 3 Conclusions of Law, that the transcript of a doctor’s deposition 4 submitted by Plaintiff included a diagnosis of left knee sprain. 5 Plaintiff, the Court committed clear Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the mere fact that 6 Dr. Hendrick’s deposition testimony was not cited does not point 7 to clear error. 8 opinions been set forth within the Court’s findings, its 9 compensatory award in the amount of $500,00 would not have 10 11 12 Moreover, even had Dr. Hendrick’s diagnosis and changed. Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment will be denied. 13 14 B. Motion for Attorney’s Fees. 15 16 Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this litigation, has 17 filed a Motion for Attorney’s fees seeking $750.00 provided the 18 Court declined to alter or amend its prior judgment in this 19 matter. 20 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment discussed above. 21 Defendant has not opposed either that Motion or the As indicated above, this is a case brought under 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983 alleging unlawful prison conditions. Section 1988 23 authorizes an award of “reasonable” attorney fees to a prevailing 24 plaintiff, and while Plaintiff unquestionably possesses that 25 status given the judgment in his favor, under 42 U.S.C. 26 § 1997e(d)(2), a defendant cannot be required to pay in 27 attorney’s fees more than 150 percent of the judgment rendered 28 against it. Because the $750.00 in attorney’s fees sought by 5 1 Plaintiff is in accordance with that 150 percent guideline, his 2 request is proper and will be granted. 3 CONCLUSION 4 5 6 For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter 7 or Amend the Judgment (Docket No. 345) is DENIED. 8 Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Docket No. 346) is GRANTED. 9 Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $750.00 in attorney’s fees. 10 11 Plaintiff’s IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2010 12 13 14 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
