Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8621523
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Andrews v. Carey
No. 8621523 · Decided May 19, 2006
No. 8621523·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
May 19, 2006
Citation
No. 8621523
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Antolin Andrews, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for costs in his action alleging denial of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Andrews’ motion for costs as he was not the prevailing party in his action against defendants. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1); see also Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 603 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (holding 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 change its conduct). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Antolin Andrews, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for costs in his action alleging denial of access to courts.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Antolin Andrews, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for costs in his action alleging denial of access to courts.
02Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
03The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Andrews’ motion for costs as he was not the prevailing party in his action against defendants.
041835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (holding 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 change its co
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Antolin Andrews, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for costs in his action alleging denial of access to courts.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Andrews v. Carey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on May 19, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8621523 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.