AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Attorneys' Fees
Monthly Law Journal Article: Attorneys' Fees in Prisoners' Civil Rights Lawsuits, 2016 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A federal appeals court upheld judgment for the five plaintiff prisoners who were severely injured during cell extractions in two high security units. While the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an interlocutory appeal from a prior qualified immunity ruling was pending, its error in doing so was harmless. As for an issue as to whether administrative remedies were exhausted as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the trial court did not “clearly err in ruling that a reasonable fear of retaliation made the grievance system effectively unavailable for plaintiffs because they reasonably believed that they would suffer additional physical force if they complained. Further, the trial court did not err in denying the defendants qualified immunity because abundant evidence was presented that the defendants inflicted severe injuries on the inmates while they were not resisting, and even while they were unconscious. The force used included multiple activations of Tasers. An award of attorneys’ fees of $5,378,174.66 was upheld. The attorneys; fees limitations of the Prison Litigation Reform Act were not applied because of California state law claims. $740,000 in compensatory damages was awarded, along with $210,000 in punitive damages. Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, #13-56292, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 14186 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner was awarded a judgment in his federal civil rights suit against two prison guards, including an award of attorney’s fees. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2) provides that in such cases “a portion of the [prisoner’s] judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.” The trial court ordered the plaintiff to pay 10% of his judgment toward the fee award, leaving the defendants responsible for the remainder. A federal appeals court reversed, holding that section 1997e(d)(2) required the district court to exhaust 25% of the prisoner’s judgment before demanding payment from the defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The mandatory phrase “shall be applied” suggests that the district court has some nondiscretionary duty to perform. The infinitival phrase “to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded” specifies the purpose of the preceding verb’s nondiscretionary duty and “to satisfy” an obligation, especially a financial obligation, usually means to discharge the obligation in full. The trial court did not have wide discretion to pick any “portion” that does not exceed the 25% cap. This conclusion is reinforced by section 1997e(d)’s surrounding provisions, which also limit the trial court’s pre-existing discretion under U.S.C. section 1988(b). Murphy v. Smith, #16-1067, 200 L. Ed. 2d 75, 2018 U.S. Lexis 1379.
A jury awarded damages of $409,751 on federal and state claims that
correctional officers hit him, fracturing a portion of his eye socket, choked
him, and then left him in his cell without medical attention. The trial court
reduced the damages to $307,733.82 and also awarded attorneys’ fees with
10% of the damage award to be applied to the fees. Liability was upheld by a
federal appeals court, rejecting arguments that Illinois sovereign immunity
applied to state-law claims against a state employee who violates
constitutional or statutory law. The court also ruled, however, that under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
attorney fee award must first be satisfied from up to 25 percent of the damage
award, and the district court did not have discretion to reduce that maximum
percentage. Murphy v. Smith, #15-3384, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 22871 (7th Cir.).
In Wilkins v. Gaddy,
#08-10914, 559 U.S. 34 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument
that a prisoner, to impose liability on a correctional officer for excessive
use of force, must show more than a "de minimus" (minimal) injury. On
remand, the prisoner was awarded $0.99 in damages by the jury, which was rounded
up to $1. The trial court awarded attorneys' fees limited to $1.40, based on
the limit of attorneys' fees in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of no more
than 150% of the money damages awarded, rather than the over $92,000 in
attorneys' fees requested. A federal appeals court has rejected an argument
that this limitation on attorneys' fees was unconstitutional. The court applied
rational basis scrutiny and that Congress could have believed that this limit
would help deter frivolous, marginal and trivial claims. Wilkins v. Gaddy,
#12-8148, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22389 (4th Cir.).
A prisoner was awarded $1,500 in compensatory and
punitive damages against a prison employee in a lawsuit over alleged
interference with his needed dental treatment. After the prisoner successfully
defended the judgment on appeal, he moved for an award of $16,800 in attorneys'
fees. The employee claimed that he only should have to pay, at most, attorneys'
fees of up to 150% of the amount of damages awarded (or $2,250), because of a
cap on attorneys' fees in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A federal appeals
court rejected this argument, holding that the cap only applies to fees awarded
for obtaining the award in the trial court and did not limit the amount of fees
that could be awarded after successfully defending such a judgment on appeal.
Further proceedings will determine the exact amount of fees to be awarded, but
the cap will not apply to the fees for work done on the appeal. Woods v. Carey,
#09-16113, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 14430 (9th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee received a jury verdict
against four deputy sheriffs on excessive force claims arising from separate
incidents when he was in the county jail. The jury only awarded $1 in damages
against one of the defendants. The other three deputies were liable,
respectively, for $5,000 in compensatory and $10,000 in punitive damage,
$50,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages, and $100,000 in
compensatory and $150,000 in punitive damages, for a total award of $365,001.
The trial court awarded $505,671.40 in attorneys'
fees and $24,549.94 in costs, ordering the plaintiff to pay $5,000 of the fee
award. The court ordered that all four defendants bee jointly and severally
liable for the remaining $500,671.40, to ensure that the attorneys' fees were
paid. This action was taken, in part, because the county indicated that it
might not indemnify the defendant against whom the largest award was made
because he was in prison and thought to be judgment-proof. An appeal of the
judgment on liability was affirmed, Jimenez v. Franklin, #07-56149, 333 Fed.
Appx. 299, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21564 (Unpub. 9th Cir.) but that appeal did not
raise the issue of joint and several liability for the attorneys' fees. An
additional $41,830.10 in fees were awarded for that appeal, bringing the fee
award to $547,501.50, or 150% of the total damage award, the fee limit under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(2). The county did
not pay $225,000 of the attorneys' fee award. A federal appeals
court rejected an argument by the deputy found liable for $1 that he could not
be held jointly and severally liable for the unpaid fees because of the
statute's attorneys' fee cap of 150% of damages, as he had not raised the issue
in the earlier appeal. Jimenez v. Franklin, #10-56199, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 10260 (9th Cir.).
A Rastafarian prisoner claimed that a corrections
officer violated his religious rights by touching his dreadlock hair without
permission. While the jury held in favor of the prisoner, they only awarded
nominal damages of $1. Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(2) of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the court's award of attorney's fees to the
prevailing plaintiff were limited to 150% of the damage award, or $1.50. The
appeals court noted that Congress, in granting a statutory right for prevailing
plaintiffs in federal civil rights lawsuits to be granted attorneys' fees,
departed from the normal rule in U.S. courts that litigants all pay their own
attorneys' fees. It was accordingly also free to put a cap on such fees in
cases brought by prisoners. Shepherd v. Goord, #10-4821, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 22928 (2nd Cir.).
Prisoners who prevailed in a settlement of a
lawsuit over prison conditions, specifically dental care, were entitled to an
award of attorneys' fees and paralegal fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, and they
were limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act to 150% of the hourly rate
established for court appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A. The court
held that the same cap applicable to attorneys' fees applies to separately
billed paralegal fees. It therefore upheld a trial court order requiring the
defendants to pay the plaintiffs' paralegal expenses at a rate of $169.50 per
hour, rather than the $82.50 per hour prison officials had argued they should
pay. Perez v. Cate, #09-17185, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 643 (9th Cir.).
A Nebraska prisoner attempted to send drawings of
a marijuana leaf and a bare-breasted woman to his mother and to a communist group,
the "Maoist Internationalist Movement." When prison officials
prevented him from doing so, he sued, claiming a violation of his First
Amendment rights. The trial court directed a verdict in the prisoner's favor,
awarded him nominal damages of $1, and ordered two defendants to pay
approximately $25,000 in attorneys' fees. The appeals court rejected the
defendants' defenses of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
and mootness as not properly preserved for appeal. It also upheld a determination
that the prisoner, since he was awarded nominal damages, was a prevailing
plaintiff, entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. But the appeals court also
held that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
limited the award of attorneys fees to 150% of the damages awarded, or $1.50,
since no injunctive or declaratory relief was awarded. Keup v. Hopkins,
#09-1079, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4538 (8th Cir.).
Muslim inmates complained that they were only
provided with Halal meat, produced in accordance with the requirements of their
religion, twice a year, while Jewish prisoners received kosher meat four to
five times a week. Prison officials agreed to provide Halal meat with the same
frequency in exchange for the dismissal of the lawsuit, which the trial court
approved. A federal appeals court ruled that the prisoners were prevailing
parties, entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988,
since they accomplished a "material alteration" on the complained of
issue, and that the caps on attorneys' fees in the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d), applied to the case despite the fact that some of the
plaintiffs were released from prison after they filed the lawsuit, but before
it was settled. Fees of $99,658.48 were awarded. On remand, the trial court was
instructed to determine a reasonable attorneys' fee award for the time spent on
the appeal. Perez v. Westchester Cty. Dep't of Corr., #08-4245, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 25396 (2nd Cir.).
After a jury awarded a prisoner $17,500 in
damages on a federal civil rights claim against a prison guard, the trial court
awarded him $26,250 in attorneys' fees. The appeals court upheld the attorneys'
fee caps in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d), rejecting
an argument that they denied prisoners equal protection of the law as compared
to non-incarcerated persons. Parker v. Conway, #08-2764, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
20723 (3rd Cir.).
Limitations on attorneys' fee awards contained in
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are constitutional
because they are based on legitimate governmental objectives, including
achieving uniformity in such awards. Parker v. Conway, #08-2764, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 20723 (3rd Cir.).
The cap on attorneys' fees imposed by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act applied both to the time the plaintiffs' attorney spent
in any underlying lawsuit and in monitoring whether a county was in compliance
with consent degrees entered into during the litigation. The court reduced a
total attorneys' fee request of $363,000 to $138,213.83. Batchelder v. Geary,
No. C-71-02017, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64893 (N.D. Cal.).
Federal appeals court rules that statute
restricting attorneys' fees awards in prisoner lawsuits to 150% of the damage
award applies to lawsuits filed by prisoners over incidents that occurred
before their incarceration. Plaintiff prisoner awarded $1 in nominal damages in
excessive force case was therefore only entitled to $1.50 in attorneys' fees,
rather than the $9,680 awarded by the trial judge. Court rejects the argument
that this result, following the "plain language" of the statute,
caused an "absurd" result. Robbins v. Chronister, No. 02-3115, 435
F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2006) [2006 JB Jun]
Prisoner who was awarded $1 in nominal damages in
federal civil rights lawsuit against off-duty police officer who allegedly
violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force in smashing the
window of his car with a baton during confrontation prior to his incarceration
was properly also awarded $9,680 in attorneys' fees and $915.16 in expenses by
trial court. Federal appeals court rules that provision of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's which limits attorneys' fee awards in prisoner suits to
150% of the money judgment, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d), did not apply to civil
rights claims that arose before the prisoner was incarcerated. Robbins v.
Chronister, No. 02-3115, 402 F.3d 1047 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that maximum
allowable attorneys' fees, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, should be
based on 150% of the hourly rate authorized by the Judicial Conference of the
United States, not on 150% of the lower hourly rate actually paid to
court-appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, which is based on the
amount actually appropriated by Congress. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 03-1068 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 3275 (6th Cir.). [2005 JB Apr]
Prisoner who prevailed on his claim that his
right of access to the courts was unconstitutionally interfered with by denial
of physical access to the prison's law library (allowing him only to request
particular materials be brought to him in his cell by providing their precise
citation) was entitled to an award of $99,981.43 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Amount of attorneys' fees award in case were not limited by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(1)(A) when a settlement
agreement provided that fees would be awarded under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988.
LaPlante v. Pepe, #01-10186-NG, 307 F. Supp. 2d 219 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
Plaintiff who obtained injunctive and declaratory
relief in class action lawsuit claiming that correctional officials failed to
adequately train and supervise its employees, thereby subjecting prisoners to a
risk of assaults by other inmates, but who received no monetary relief was
entitled to an award of $427,158.73 in attorneys' fees and expenses. The
maximum hourly rate for the attorneys' in the case was limited, under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1997e(d)(3) to 150% of the hourly fee for
appointed lawyers paid in the federal circuit where the lawsuit was brought,
rather than 150% of the rate established by the Judicial Conference. This
resulted in a maximum hourly fee of $135 per hour, rather than $169.50 per
hour, in this case. Court also rules that plaintiff's attorney was entitled to
a fee multiplier in the case because of "excellent work" enabling
case to be resolved through summary judgment and settlement, avoiding a costly
trial and saving defendant officials higher attorneys' fees and costs. Skinner
v. Uphoff, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (D. Wyoming. 2004). [N/R]
While prisoner successfully proved that prison
security director improperly put him in segregation in retaliation for filing
"too many" complaints and grievances, in violation of his First
Amendment rights, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he was not entitled
to an award of compensatory damages in the absence of physical injury, but only
$1 in nominal damages. Appeals court also upholds the decision not to award
punitive damages, since the defendant acted out of "frustration,"
rather than with an "evil motive," and upholds application of PLRA
section to limit attorneys' fee award in the case to $1.50. Royal v. Kautzky,
No. 02-3446, 375 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Prison Litigation Reform Act's cap on attorneys'
fees at 150% of damage award does not apply in cases where the parties
privately settle the lawsuit, and subsequently enter a stipulation of dismissal
of the claim in the trial court. Torres v. Walker, No. 03-102, 356 F.3d 238
(2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Prisoner awarded $1,000 against one of two
defendant correctional officers on his claim for excessive use of force against
him was also entitled to $1,500 in attorneys' fees as a prevailing party under
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d) (2) limiting awards against defendants for attorneys'
fees to 150% of award for damages. Farella v. Hockaday, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1076
(C.D. Ill. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who was awarded compensatory
damages of $15,000 and punitive damages of $30,000 for alleged excessive force
and inadequate medical care must use 25% of his damage award to pay his lawyer
attorneys' fees, reducing the amount to be paid by the defendants from $40,654.75
to $29,404.75. Jackson v. Austin, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D. Kan. 2003). [2004
JB Jan]
Federal appeals court, by 6-5 vote, upholds
constitutionality of attorneys' fees limits in prisoner lawsuits imposed by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. Trial judge's finding of an equal protection
violation overturned in case where prisoner was awarded damages for alleged
deliberate indifference to his need to be evaluated for a liver transplant.
Johnson v. Daley, #00-3981, 339 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2003).[2003 JB Oct]
Attorneys' fee restrictions imposed by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act apply to all lawsuits filed by a prisoner, not just those
that challenge prison conditions. Federal appeals court rules that they also
apply to a civil rights lawsuit challenging the denial of parole or otherwise
challenging the length of confinement. Court also rejects equal protection
challenge to the statute, and rules that it allows for the awarding of
attorneys' fees on work done litigating attorneys' fees issues (so-called
"fees on fees"). Jackson v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, No.
02-15545, 331 F.3d 790 (11th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Federal appeals court holds that limits on
attorneys' fees awards established by the Prison Litigation Reform Act applied
to prisoner's successful challenge to retroactive change in rules concerning
the date of his eligibility for parole hearing. These limits apply to all
lawsuits brought by prisoners, not just those concerning "prison
conditions," but also those challenging the length of confinement. Jackson
v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, #02-15545, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9773
(11th Cir.). [2003 JB Jul]
Attorneys' fee award limitations contained in
Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply to a fee award to prevailing plaintiff
prisoners under the attorneys' fee sections of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act. Prevailing plaintiffs in disability
discrimination lawsuit against California correctional officials were also
entitled to fees for work their lawyers did in separate litigation defending a
judgment on a similar issue from another federal appeals court on review before
the U.S. Supreme Court. Armstrong v. Davis, #01-15779, 318 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.
2003). [2003 JB May]
A state training school for juveniles constituted
a "correctional facility" under provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(1)(A), limiting the awards of attorneys'
fees in cases challenging prison conditions of confinement to those directly and
reasonably incurred in "proving an actual violation" of protected
rights. Class of juvenile inmates was not a "prevailing party"
entitled to $376,637.48 award of attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1988 when the court order approving a settlement of the claims incorporated
none of the specific terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Christina
A. v. Bloomberg, #01-3698, 315 F. 3d 990 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
A prisoner who was only awarded $1 in nominal
damages in his excessive force lawsuit against a correctional officer was
limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act to a maximum award of attorneys'
fees of $1.50; federal appeals court upholds statutory limit against equal
protection argument. Foulk v. Charrier, #00-1132, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir.
2001).[2002 JB Apr]
294:87 Prisoner awarded a total of $83,250 in
lawsuit asserting excessive use of force by correctional officer was not
entitled to $30,550.90 in attorneys' fees; such fees must be recalculated,
based on cap on hourly fees in Prison Litigation Reform Act after federal
appeals court rejects trial court's ruling that the cap violated prisoner's
right to equal protection. Wolff v. Moore, No. 00-3959, 00- 3995, 2000 U.S.
App. LEXIS 28054 (6th Cir.).
EDITOR'S NOTE:
See also the prior decision in Hadix v. Johnson, Nos. 96-2387, 96-2397, 230
F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2000). ("Sec. 803(d)(3) of the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(d)(3), does not violate plaintiff's rights under the implied equal
protection provision of the Fifth Amendment.").
292:52 Prisoner
who was awarded only $1 in nominal damages in his lawsuit over his loss of
consciousness while in restraint was only entitled to $1.50 in attorneys' fees,
not the $3,892.50 awarded by the trial court; cap on attorneys' fees in Prison
Litigation Reform Act applies to awards of nominal damages and does not violate
prisoner's rights. Voivin v. Black, No. 99-2085, 225 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2000).
290:19 Federal trial
judge rules that attorneys' fees limits of Prison Litigation Reform Act violate
equal protection; plaintiff who was awarded $40,000 in damages for inadequate
medical care is awarded $88,578.81 in attorneys' fees and costs. Johnson v.
Daley, 117 F. Supp. 2d 889 (W.D. Wis. 2000).
265:3 Prisoner
who was awarded $17,500 in damages for correctional officer's failure to
protect him from being stabbed by his cellmate was not only entitled to
$10,131.64 in attorneys' fees, but also to attorneys' fees for the time his
lawyer spent preparing a fee petition seeking the attorneys' fee award; Prison
Litigation Reform Act did not bar an award of "fees on fees."
Hernandez v. Kalinowski, #97-1734, 146 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 1998).
267:36 Federal
appeals court rules that attorneys' fees limits in Prison Litigation Reform Act
do not apply in cases pending prior to Act's passage; U.S. Supreme Court grants
review. Hadix v. Johnson, # 96-2567, 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir.), cert. granted,
Johnson v. Hadix, No. 98-262, 119 S. Ct. 508 (1998).
270:87 State of
Alabama found to have avoided any good faith attempt to comply with federal
overcrowding lawsuit consent decree; while consent decree was properly
dissolved at this point pursuant to provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, attorneys' for plaintiff inmates and for county were entitled to
attorneys' fees for attempting enforcement of decree while it was in effect.
Chairs v. Burgess, 25 F.Supp.2d 1333 (N.D. Ala. 1998). 272:115 Attorneys' fee
cap in Prison Litigation Reform Act applied to work done after law's effective
date, even in cases which were pending prior to the law's enactment. Martin v.
Hadix, #98-262, 119 S. Ct. 1998 (1999).
238:147 Federal
Prison Litigation Reform Act becomes law, makes numerous changes in prison
litigation, including scope of injunctive orders, standards for termination of
injunctive orders, amount of attorneys' fees, standard for prisoner release
orders in overcrowding cases, prisoner payment of filing fees and court costs,
barring inmates who repetitively file frivolous suits from further filings, no
awards for mental/emotional distress in the absence of physical injury, and
revocation of federal prisoner's good time credits if they file malicious
lawsuits or testify falsely, among other highlights.