Douglas Lee Horn v. Larry Carter;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS LEE HORN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LARRY CARTER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15432
D.C. No. 04-CV-02014-SMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DS/Research 08-15432 2
§ 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
plaintiff’s pro se status in determining whether to award attorney’s fees to a
defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and to consider the plaintiff’s financial
resources in determining the amount of the award).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --