Callahan v. Millard Cnty, et al, No. 2:2004cv00952 - Document 118 (D. Utah 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 108 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 04/23/2009. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION AFTON CALLAHAN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES vs. MILLARD COUNTY, et al., Case No. 2:04-CV-952 TS Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion for Attorney Fees, filed on February 4, 2009, with this Court and with the Tenth Circuit. Prior to the present Motion, on May 18, 2006, Summary Judgment was granted to Defendants. Plaintiff appealed and on September 17, 2007, the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to Defendants. However, on February 23, 2009, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tenth Circuit, granting costs to Defendants. On April 22, 2009, the Tenth Circuit issued its ruling, affirming the grant of summary judgment for Defendants and denying Plaintiff s Motion for Attorney Fees. 1 In order to recover attorney s fees under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1988, Plaintiff must be the prevailing party, in that he must have prevailed on the merits 1 by obtaining an enforceable judgment2 or some comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement.3 Because the United States Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, and this Court have all found that summary judgment was appropriate for the Defendants, there are no grounds upon which Plaintiff can be considered the prevailing party. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Afton Callahan s Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket No. 108) is DENIED. DATED April 23, 2009. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 1 Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1980). 2 Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760 (1987). 3 Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980). 2
]]>
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.
