Isaac Miller v. Steven Schmitz

MEMORANDUM

Isaac Miller appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Miller filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . The district court granted his motion, but awarded significantly less than the amount Miller requested. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the hourly rate for one of Miller’s attorneys from $175/ hour to $125/hour based on the court’s “own experience and knowledge of the market rate in Fresno.” The burden was on Miller’s counsel “to produce satisfactory evidence ... that the requested rate[ ] [was] in line -with those prevailing in the community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 , 895 n.11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). He failed to do so. As a result, it was proper for the district court to “rely[ ] on [its] own knowledge of customary rates and [its] experience concerning reasonable and proper fees.” Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s calculation of the applicable hourly rates.

2. We aré unable to.…