Summary
reversing award of attorney's fees against pro se prisoner
Summary of this case from Clemons v. HayesOpinion
No. 08-15432.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 29, 2009.
Douglas Lee Horn, Buckeye, AZ, pro se. Lisa Parsons, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, Diana Day Rasner, Broening Oberg Woods Wilson, P.C., Phoenix, AR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 04-CV-02014-SMM.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Douglas Lee Horn, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment awarding $33,311.56 in attorney's fees and costs to Defendant Levine pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. L.A. County Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 619 (9th Cir. 1987). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
We vacate the judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs because there is no indication in the record that the district court considered Horn's pro se status and financial resources. See id. at 620, 621 (requiring district courts to consider a plaintiffs pro se status in determining whether to award attorney's fees to a defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and to consider the plaintiffs financial resources in determining the amount of the award).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.