(PC) Rushdan v. Casas ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALADIN RUSHDAN aka 1:16-cv-00988-NONE-GSA-PC ROBERT STANLEY WOODS, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff, FOR REIMBURSEMENT 13 (ECF No. 79.) vs. 14 D. DAVEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Saladan Rushdan aka Robert Stanley Woods (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding 20 pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case 21 now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on March 9, 2018, against 22 defendant Correctional Officer Casas (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment and related state claims. (ECF No. 28.) 24 On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reimbursement of funds. (ECF No. 79.) On 25 August 20, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 83.) 26 II. MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT 27 Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to attorney’s fees as reimbursement for his labor, 28 postage, paper, copies, and anxiety. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion is premature 1 because the case is not concluded and Plaintiff has not been found to be the prevailing party; 2 Plaintiff has not provided any documentation that he actually incurred any costs; and, because 3 plaintiff is proceeding pro se he is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. 4 Defendant’s arguments have merit. As a plaintiff proceeding pro se with this case, 5 Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees. “In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of 6 section[] 1983. . . , the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party. . . reasonable 7 attorney’s fees. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to attorney’s 8 fees for his time spent or anxiety suffered while litigating this case is without merit. Plaintiff is 9 representing himself in this action. Because Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney, he is not 10 entitled to recover attorney’s fees. See Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 333 n.2 (9th Cir. 11 1990), superseded by statute as stated in Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005); 12 Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 F.2d 1411, 1412 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Rickley v. Cnty. of Los 13 Angeles, 654 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court accordingly adopted a per se rule, 14 categorically precluding an award of attorney’s fees under § 1988 to a pro se attorney-plaintiff.”) 15 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of funds shall be denied. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of 18 funds, filed on July 23, 2020, is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: September 5, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28