Melendres

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 civil contempt by disobeying the injunction. After Sheridan filed his opening brief, we granted Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Sheridan’s appeal for lack of standing. Plaintiffs now seek attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b) for services performed in connection with the appeal. We grant the award in part.

Plaintiffs are “prevailing parties]” within the meaning of section 1988 in every sense. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b). They succeeded in obtaining an injunction in the district court and succeeded in dismissing Sheridan’s appeal from its finding of contempt for violating the injunction. That we dismissed Sheridan’s appeal for lack of standing rather than on the merits does not, as Sheridan contends, divest Plaintiffs of prevailing party status. See Sotomura v. Cty. of Hawaii, 679 F.2d 152 , 152 (9th Cir. 1982) (order) (holding plaintiffs were prevailing parties, “even though they prevailed by obtaining dismissal of the appeal…