Gregory Brown v. Dean Mason , 431 F. App'x 528 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 03 2011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