Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kelly v. Wengler

United States District Court, D. Idaho

February 20, 2014

JOSHUA KELLY, JOSE PIÑ A, ANDREW IBARRA, RAY BARRIOS, RANDY ENZIMINGER, MICHAEL MIERA, PRISONER A, and PRISONER F, Individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

Page 1070

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1071

For Joshua Kelly, Jose Pina, Andrew Ibarra, Ray Barrios, Randy Enzminger, Michael Miera, Prisoner A, Prisoner F, Plaintiffs: Richard Alan Eppink, LEAD ATTORNEY, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation, Boise, ID; James D. Huegli, Attorney at Law, Boise, ID; Stephen L Pevar, PRO HAC VICE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Hartford, CT.

For Timothy Wengler, Corrections Corporation of America, Inc, Defendants: Daniel Patrick Struck, Tara B Zoellner, Timothy J Bojanowski, PRO HAC VICE, Struck, Wieneke & Love, PLC, Chandler, AZ; Gary Harold Burger, Lisa S Wahlin, PRO HAC VICE, JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI PLC, Phoenix, AZ; Kirtlan G Naylor, NAYLOR & HALES, Boise, ID; .

For Associated Press, The, Interpleader: Charles A Brown, Lewiston, ID; David A Schulz, PRO HAC VICE, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York, NY; Steven D Zansberg, PRO HAC VICE, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, Denver, CO.


Page 1072

DAVID O. CARTER, United States District Judge, Sitting by Special Designation.


Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees and costs. See Dkts. 96, 102. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. After considering the moving and responding papers, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motions.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In April 2011, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that the level of violence at the Idaho Correctional Center (ICC) violated Plaintiffs' and other inmates' constitutional rights. See Amended Class Action Complaint (" Compl." ) (Dkt. 1). ICC is run by Corrections Corporation of America (" CCA" ), a private corporation that contracted with the Idaho Department of Corrections (" IDOC" ) to operate ICC. After extensive settlement talks and before class certification, the parties agreed to settle the case and signed a Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 25 Ex. A). One of the terms of the Settlement Agreement stated that CCA would " agree to comply with the staffing pattern pursuant to CCA's contract with [IDOC]." Settlement Agreement ¶ 4. The Settlement Agreement set out a dispute resolution

Page 1073

procedure that included submission of disputes to this Court for resolution. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 15. The Settlement Agreement was set to expire two years from its date of signature, placing its initial termination date in September 2013. Id. ¶ 16. The Settlement Agreement also provided that, should this Court find a material breach of the Settlement Agreement, the Court may award attorneys' fees and costs. Id. ¶ 23.

In December 2012, CCA discovered possible problems with the staffing at ICC. While investigating a harassment claim, CCA found evidence that mandatory posts in ICC were going vacant. See Pls' Ex. 130. On January 23, 2013, the investigator on the harassment matter raised the issue with CCA's assistant general counsel, Scott Craddock. Craddock determined the allegation of falsified staffing hours was credible, and informed IDOC and then-Warden Wengler. CCA hired a law firm to oversee the investigation. In March 2013, the law firm verified that falsifications had taken place. On April 9, 2013, CCA informed state police, the attorney general, and IDOC.

On April 11, 2013, IDOC and CCA each issued a press release about the investigation. CCA's press release stated that the corporation had " concluded an extensive internal investigation of staffing records" and " determined that during a seven-month period last year there were some inaccuracies." CCA Press Release, Pls' Ex. 106. The press release further stated that CCA would compensate the state for any identified unverified staffing hours, and that " [t]he unverified hours represent a fraction of the total staffing requirements, and there was no apparent increase in violence or other security incidents during the period in question." Id. IDOC's press release, Pls' Ex. 105, provided additional details. It noted that there were nearly 4,800 hours over seven months for which records indicated a correctional officer was staffing a security post that was actually vacant. IDOC announced that CCA acknowledged falsification of staffing records and that Idaho State Police would examine the findings and evidence to review whether a criminal investigation was justified.

In June 2013, Plaintiffs initiated contempt proceedings against CCA. See Motions (Dkts. 39-40). On July 16, 2013, CCA sent Plaintiffs an email offering a settlement with three provisions: 1) an extension of the Settlement Agreement until June 30, 2014; 2) a specific individual named in the offer would act as independent monitor to review ICC staffing for the remainder of the Settlement Agreement; and 3) payment of Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in moving for contempt.

See Reply Ex. 1.

The Court granted expedited discovery and held a contempt hearing on August 7 and 8, 2013. On September 16, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum decision and order (" Memorandum Decision" ) (Dkt. 76) finding CCA in contempt, extending the Settlement Agreement for two years, setting a system for sanctions if compliance did not improve, and implementing compliance monitoring. The Court instructed the parties to agree to a monitor and directed Plaintiffs to submit a motion for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Id. at 23.

II. Legal Standard

Plaintiffs state that they seek attorneys' fees under the Settlement Agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but acknowledge that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA" ) limits fee awards under § 1988.

Page 1074

See Reply at 3. CCA agrees that the PLRA's limits on attorneys' fees apply, as stated in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1). CCA does not appear to dispute that the normal framework under § 1988 governs this determination, as limited by the PLRA.

a. Attorneys' Fees Under § 1988

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Court may, in its discretion, grant a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs to the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The lodestar formula should be used to determine a reasonable figure for an award of attorneys' fees. A lodestar figure is calculated by " multiplying the hours spent on a case by a reasonable hourly rate of compensation for each attorney involved." Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 563, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). " A 'strong presumption' exists that the lodestar figure represents a 'reasonable' fee, and upward adjustments of the lodestar are proper only in 'rare' and 'exceptional' cases." Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 565).

A plaintiff is considered a prevailing party if it succeeds on any significant issue in litigation that gives some benefit that plaintiff sought in bringing the suit. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). To satisfy this requirement, the suit must have produced a material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). This alteration may be the result of an enforceable judgment or comparable relief through a consent decree. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992).

Once the Court has determined that attorneys' fees are warranted in a given case, the Court must then assess whether the amount of fees requested is reasonable. " In setting a reasonable attorney's fee, the district court should make specific findings as to the rate and hours it has determined to be reasonable." Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Inc., 886 F.2d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1989)). The first step the district court must take is to " determine the presumptive lodestar figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate." Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1070 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Next, the district court should, where appropriate, " adjust the 'presumptively reasonable' lodestar figure based upon the factors listed in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir. 1975), that have not been subsumed in the lodestar calculation." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

b. Limits Under the PLRA

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA" ) applies to all civil rights actions by prisoners. The PLRA limits the availability of attorneys' fees under § 1988 " [i]n any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1). Under the PLRA, attorneys' fees can be awarded for post-judgment work in enforcing and monitoring the court's prior judgments. Webb v. Ada County, 285 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002).

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1), the Court may award fees to prisoners only to the extent that (1) the fees were " directly incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights," § 1997e(d)(1)(A); and (2) the fees are either " proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the

Page 1075

violation" or " directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation," § 1997e(d)(1)(B). See Jimenez v. Franklin, 680 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2012). The PLRA also states that " [n]o award of attorney's fees . . . shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3).

III. Discussion

a. Prevailing Party

Plaintiffs are clearly the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs moved to find CCA in contempt for failing to meet its staffing obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The Court found CCA in contempt and ordered relief: an extension of the Settlement Agreement for two years, appointment of an independent monitor, a set sanction amount per vacant post hour over twelve hours per month, and attorneys' fees and costs. See Order (Dkt. 76). CCA does not appear to dispute that the Plaintiffs ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.