FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA No. 16-16663 MELENDRES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; D.C. No. JESSICA QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ, on 2:07-cv-02513- behalf of themselves and all others GMS similarly situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ORDER VELIA MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MANUEL NIETO, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SOMOS AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant, v. GERARD A. SHERIDAN, Movant-Appellant. 2 ORTEGA MELENDRES V. SHERIDAN Filed January 4, 2018 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Graber, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges. SUMMARY* Civil Rights/Attorney’s Fees The panel granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs had obtained an injunction against defendant in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1267 (9th Cir. 2015). Gerard Sheridan, a now-retired employee of defendant, appealed from the district court’s finding that he committed civil contempt by disobeying the injunction. After Sheridan filed his opening brief, the panel granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Sheridan’s appeal for lack of standing. Plaintiffs then sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for services performed in connection with the appeal. The panel held that plaintiffs were “prevailing part[ies]” within the meaning of section 1988 in every sense. They succeeded in obtaining an injunction in the district court and succeeded in dismissing Sheridan’s appeal from the district court’s finding of contempt for violating the injunction. That the panel dismissed Sheridan’s appeal for lack of standing * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ORTEGA MELENDRES V. SHERIDAN 3 rather than on the merits did not, as Sheridan asserted, divest plaintiffs of prevailing party status. The panel therefore granted plaintiffs’ application for attorney’s fees and costs related to Sheridan’s dismissal. Because, however, plaintiffs did not succeed in opposing Sheridan’s appeal on the merits, the panel declined to award them fees for preparing the answering brief. The panel referred the matter to the Appellate Commissioner to calculate the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs to award plaintiffs consistent with this order. COUNSEL Dennis I. Wilenchik and John D. Wilenchik, Phoenix, Arizona, for Movant-Appellant. Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, California; Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, California; Kathleen E. Brody and Brenda Muñoz Furnish, ACLU Foundation of Arizona; Cecilia D. Wang, ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, San Francisco, California; Anne Lai, Irvine, California; Julia Gomez, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. ORDER Plaintiffs obtained an injunction against Defendant in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1267 (9th Cir. 2015). Sheridan, a now-retired employee of Defendant, appealed from the district court’s finding that he committed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals