Gregory Brown v. Dean Mason

MEMORANDUM ** 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 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 compen *529 satory 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, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (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. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.