Jones v. Cnty. of Sacramento

DRAKE JONES, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV S-09-1025 DAD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: August 12, 2011

ORDER

This matter came before the court on May 20, 2011, for hearing of plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and Local Rule 54-293. (Doc. No. 168.)¹ Attorneys Stewart Katz and Guy Danilowitz appeared on behalf of plaintiff Drake Jones. Attorneys John Lavra and Amanda Butts appeared on behalf of defendants Daniel Morrissey, Justin Chaussee, Ken Becker, Christopher Mrozinski and Chris Conrad. Oralargument was heard and plaintiff's motion was taken under submission. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses will be granted, in part.

BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which he alleged, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the defendant deputies unreasonably seized him and used excessive force against him in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that defendant Morrissey failed to properly supervise the other defendants in their use of force against plaintiff.

Plaintiff's version of the events, which he presented at trial, can be summarized as follows. On August 5, 2008, he was helping a friend move and got into a verbal dispute with the landlord of the property, resulting in plaintiff's arrest. Plaintiff was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail and was placed into a so-called sobering cell, although there was no indication that he was under the influence of either alcohol or drugs. Shortly after being placed in the sobering cell plaintiff observed raw sewage containing feces and urine coming out of a drain on the floor of the cell. Plaintiff attempted to alert jail staff about the situation by banging on the window and pointing at the drain. In an attempt to distance himself from the sewage, plaintiff curled up on a bench/ledge in the sobering cell. Shortly thereafter, deputies Morrissey, Chaussee, Becker, Mrozinski and Conrad entered the cell. Incorrectly believing that plaintiff was responsible for the flooding of the cell, the deputies grabbed plaintiff, twisted his arms and took him to the ground and into the raw sewage. The deputies used their feet and knees and forced plaintiff's face and body into the sewage on the cell floor. The deputies then handcuffed plaintiff, shackled his legs, and forcibly moved him into a so-called safety cell. On arrival at the safety cell² , the defendant deputies forced plaintiff onto the floor face down and told him not to move. The defendant deputies left plaintiff laying on his stomach on the floor of the safety cell,in sewage-soaked clothing and with his hands and legs bound and with his pants pulled down around his ankles for approximately two hours. Thereafter, the defendant deputies returned to the safety cell, got back on top of plaintiff, twisted his arms and asked if he had "had enough." Plaintiff cried out "yes," and the deputies removed plaintiff's handcuffs and shackles and left the cell. An hour later, plaintiff was moved to a third jail cell with other inmates and was eventually released. No criminal charges were ever brought against plaintiff stemming from this arrest.

Defendants denied plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing on their part. In summary, they presented the following version of events at trial. Defendant Deputy Becker testified that he'd come in contact with plaintiff during the booking process and found his behavior during that process to be somewhat uncooperative. Because of that, defendant Becker decided plaintiff was either under the influence of alcohol or "coming off" of drugs and designated him for placement in the sobriety cell, which was typically dirty. According to defendant Becker, when he returned to the sobriety cell area he saw water running out of the cell and observed plaintiff banging on the cell window and yelling. Based upon his observations of plaintiff during the booking process, defendant Becker assumed that plaintiff had intentionally plugged the toilet to flood the sobriety cell.³ Becker so informed his fellow defendant deputies, who gathered with defendant Sgt. Morrissey and formed a plan to remove plaintiff from the sobriety cell and move him to a safety cell. Defendant deputies Chaussee, Becker, Mrozinski and Conrad, in defendant Morrissey's presence and under his personal supervision, entered the sobriety cell and placed their hands on plaintiff to remove him. As the four deputies guided plaintiff toward the cell door, plaintiff stiffened and began pulling toward the left thereby resisting them. The defendants took plaintiff to the wet floor of the cell face down only in order to gain control and place him in restraints. This took some time because plaintiff, while not fighting, was not completely cooperative and also due to the officers encountering mechanicaldifficulties with the handcuffs and restraints. According to defendants, plaintiff was taken in shackles to the safety cell because he had resisted the deputies. Moreover, the shackles were removed approximately an hour after plaintiff was placed in that isolation cell. While they perhaps did not document checking on plaintiff while in the safety cell as often as they were supposed to, all the actions they took with respect to plaintiff were proper and in keeping with their training and jail procedures.

Plaintiff proceeded to trial on the theory that the defendants had engaged in the excessive use of force against him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights first, in forcing him face down into the sewage on the floor of the sobriety cell and applying unnecessary physical force against him there. Second, plaintiff argued that the defendants had used excessive force in placing him shackled in the safety cell, in his view, soaked in raw sewage and leaving him there with his pants around his ankles for approximately two hours.

All of plaintiff's own actions as well as his interactions with deputies inside the Sacramento County Main Jail, as well as all of his time spent in the three cells, was captured on the jail surveillance camera. The parties placed those videotapes into evidence and both played and re-played them for the jury at length. The jury was exposed to the video footage in slow motion, in freeze frame and in every other possible manner of presentation. Witness after witness interpreted, from their own point of view, what the video of each incident in fact depicted. Thus, the dispute was clearly framed for the jury: (1) did the defendants violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to excessive force in the sobriety cell? (2) did the defendants violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to excessive force in the safety cell? (3) did defendant Sgt. Morrissey fail to properly supervise the deputies under his command in their use of force against plaintiff?

The jury trial in this action commenced on February 22, 2011. On March 9, 2011, the jury return its verdict. (Doc. Nos. 161-162.) The jury did not find by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the defendants used excessive force in restraining plaintiff and taking him tothe floor of the sobering cell. (Doc. No. 162 at 2.) However, the jury did find by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the defendants used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment in placing plaintiff in the safety cell under the circumstances as the jury found them to be. (Id.) The jury also found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Morrissey violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by failing to supervise the other defendants. (Id. at 3.) The jury awarded plaintiff a total of $31,000.00 in damages split among the five defendants. (Id.) Moreover, the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that in violating plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment, each of the five defendants acted maliciously, oppressively or in reckless disregard for plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Id.) Despite this finding, the jury elected not to award plaintiff punitive damages against any of the defendants. (Id. at 4.)

On April 6, 2011, plaintiff filed the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses now pending before the court. (Pl.' Mot. for Fees (Doc. No. 169)). Defendants filed an opposition on May 6, 2011, (Defs.' Opp.'n. (Doc. No. 182)), and plaintiff filed a reply on May 13, 2011. (Pl.'s Reply (Doc. No. 185)). As updated by plaintiff's reply, plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $479,713.12, broken down as follows: (1) a lodestar amount of $391,230; (2) expenses in the amount of $34,138.12; (3) $18,855.00 for time spent opposing defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; and (4) $35,490 for time spent on plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and plaintiff's reply to defendants' opposition to that motion. (Pl.'s Reply (Doc. No. 185) at 30-31.)

STANDARD

In an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part ofthe costs . . ."⁴ 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The Supreme Court has explained the historical underpinnings and purpose of § 1988(b) as follows:

In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975), this Court reaffirmed the "American Rule" that each party in a lawsuit ordinarily shall bear its own attorney's fees unless there is express statutory authorization to the contrary. In response Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, authorizing the district courts to award a reasonable attorney's fee to prevailing parties in civil rights litigation. The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure "effective access to the judicial process" for persons with civil rights grievances. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 1 (19

...