Ervin Charles St. Amand, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners; Bryn Armstrong;nikki Bingsley; Thomas P. Chickory; Beatrice Franklin;richard E. Wyett; Thomas P. Wright; John Foremaster;representative Denison, Nevada Board of Parole Hearing Rep,defendants-appellees, 106 F.3d 408 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^** 

California state prisoner Ervin Charles St. Armand¹  appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for attorney's fees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners. St. Armand alleged that he was denied parole in retaliation for his prior lawsuits and that the parole board violated his due process rights by not providing him with a written statement of the reasons he was denied parole. St. Armand contends that despite the dismissal of his action for failure to state a claim, he is entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as the prevailing party because his suit was the "catalyst" for the decision to appoint a new board of parole commissioners. The "catalyst test," however, is inapplicable where, as here, there is a final judgment against the party seeking fees. Cf. Sablan v. Dep't of Finance, 856 F.2d 1317, 1324 (9th Cir. 1988). Even if St. Amand had been the prevailing party, he could not obtain attorney fees because he is pro se. See Friedman v. State of Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 333 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.