(PS) Hoffmann v. Lassen County et al., No. 2:2016cv00946 - Document 48 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/2018 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43 ADOPTED in PART and MODIFIES in PART; Defendants' 39 Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. (Reader, L)

Download PDF

(PS) Hoffmann v. Lassen County et al. Doc. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KASEY F. HOFFMANN, 12 2:16-cv-00946-JAM-AC Plaintiff, 13 14 No. v. ORDER LASSEN COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 action seeking relief under The Indian Child Welfare Act 19 (“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–63. 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The matter was referred to a 22 Defendants move for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 39, following 23 dismissal of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint for failure to 24 join necessary parties. 25 judge filed findings and recommendations, ECF No. 43, which were 26 served on all parties. 27 findings and recommendations. 28 /// On January 23, 2018, the magistrate Defendants filed objections to those Obj., ECF No. 46. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2 § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. 4 in part the findings and recommendations as to Defendants’ motion 5 for attorney’s fees. The Court adopts in part and modifies 6 7 I. LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings or 9 recommendations, the district court makes a de novo determination 10 of those portions to which objection is made. 11 § 636(b)(1). 12 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 13 magistrate judge,” and receive further evidence or send the 14 matter back to the magistrate judge with instructions. 15 28 U.S.C. The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, Id. De novo review requires the court to “review the matter 16 anew, the same as if it had not been heard before, and as if no 17 decision previously had been rendered.” 18 Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006). 19 hear any witnesses or hold a hearing of the case, so long as it 20 arrives at an independent conclusion about the portions of the 21 report to which objections were made. 22 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). Freeman v. DirecTV, The court need not United States v. Remsing, 23 24 25 II. ANALYSIS Defendants object to both parts of the magistrate judge’s 26 reasoning for denying them attorney’s fees. 27 Defendants assert that the magistrate judge was incorrect in 28 finding that their motion was untimely, because it complied with 2 Opp’n at 1. First, 1 Local Rule 293(a). 2 magistrate judge incorrectly relied on Plaintiff’s subjective 3 belief that the complaint was filed in good faith. Id. at 2–3. Second, Defendants assert the Id. at 3–4. 4 A. Defendants’ Motion Was Timely 5 Defendants’ first argument as to timeliness is well taken. 6 Defendants filed their motion for attorney’s fees 28 days after 7 entry of judgment. 8 Defendants filed the motion beyond the 14-day period called for 9 in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B). The magistrate judge accurately assessed that Nevertheless, 10 Defendants persuasively argued that Local Rule 293(a) extends the 11 filing period to 28 days after judgment. 12 under Rule 54(d) applies in the absence of a statute or court 13 order providing otherwise. 14 Rule 293(a) is a standing court order for purposes of Rule 54(d), 15 Eastwood v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249, 1257 (9th Cir. 16 1997), rendering Defendants’ motion timely. The 14-day deadline Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). Local 17 B. The Factors In This Case Weigh Against A Fee Award 18 Defendants next assert that the magistrate judge should not 19 have considered Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs when determining 20 whether to award fees. 21 district court has discretion to refuse or award costs. 22 v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016). 23 defendant in a civil rights case may receive a fee award if the 24 plaintiff’s action was “unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or 25 vexatious.” 26 2007). 27 Supreme Court has stated that limitations on awarding fees “apply 28 with special force” and “fees should rarely be awarded against Opp’n at 3–4. In the Ninth Circuit, the Draper A prevailing Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 666 (9th Cir. Where the plaintiff is an uncounseled prisoner, the 3 1 2 such plaintiffs.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980). Defendants argue fees must be awarded because one of the 3 facts alleged—that Plaintiff’s parental rights were terminated— 4 was demonstrably false, and thus they conclude Plaintiff’s case 5 was entirely frivolous. 6 Plaintiff’s case because it was frivolous or wholly without 7 merit. 8 prejudice, for failure to join a necessary party pursuant to 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and (19). Yet the Court did not dismiss Rather, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case, without Based on the 10 material submitted, Defendants have not carried their burden of 11 showing that Plaintiff’s actions were objectively unreasonable, 12 frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. 13 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees is denied. 15 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons set forth above, 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. 20 The Court adopts in part and modifies in part the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 43, filed January 23, 2018; 21 2. 22 denied. 23 Dated: Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 39, is May 2, 2018. 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.