party who does not obtain judicial relief is not a prevailing party, even if party achieves its desired result because the commencement of the lawsuit causes the defendants to voluntarily alter conduct
How later courts described this case
- party who does not obtain judicial relief is not a prevailing party, even if party achieves its desired result because the commencement of the lawsuit causes the defendants to voluntarily alter conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY TYREE BROWN, No. 09-36038
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-05071-RHW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DEAN MASON, Grievance Program
Specialist, DOC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Tyree Brown, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment requiring each party to bear its own costs in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging that his personal property was confiscated in violation of the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the legal question of whether a party was the prevailing party, Kimbrough v.
California, 609 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 2010), and for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s decision regarding costs, Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 F.3d 1054,
1070 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court entered judgment for defendants on Brown’s claims for
compensatory and punitive damages and dismissed Brown’s claim for declaratory
and injunctive relief as moot. As a result, Brown was not a prevailing party, see
Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,
532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001) (party who does not obtain judicial relief is not a
prevailing party, even if party achieves its desired result because the
commencement of the lawsuit causes the defendants to voluntarily alter conduct),
and the district court was not required to explain its order that each party bear its
own costs, see Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-
92 (9th Cir. 2000) (a district court must only specify its reasons for denying costs
to a prevailing party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)).
AFFIRMED.
09-36038