The U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 21 cut back the amount of awards prisoners can keep if they win a civil rights suit.
Prevailing prisoners must pay 25 percent of their own money judgment to satisfy an attorneys’ fees award in their favor, the high court said. District court judges have no discretion to alter that amount, the court said.
The decision split the court 5-4 along familiar ideological lines, with the court’s newest member, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, penning the majority opinion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent that prevailing prisoners don’t typically recover large money judgments in these cases. “In fiscal year 2012, for instance, the median damages award in a prisoner-civil rights action litigated to victory (i.e., not settled or decided against the prisoner) was a mere $4,185,” Sotomayor said.
Because 25 percent of that amount is unlikely to satisfy any attorneys’ fee award, the court’s decision means prevailing prisoners’ judgments will almost always be effectively reduced by one quarter.
That weakens one of the few checks we have on horrific abuse in U.S. prisons, David Shapiro, of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Chicago, told Bloomberg Law.
A contrary ruling, though, would have left state and local governments—and their taxpayers—holding the bag for a prisoner’s attorneys’ fees, Lisa Soronen, of the State & Local Legal Center, Washington, told Bloomberg Law.
State and local governments often are the ones that ultimately pay damages and attorneys’ fees “when their employees are successfully sued by prisoners,” Soronen said.
“Even following this ruling, in many cases states and local governments may still end up paying significant” attorneys’ fees, she said. “But now they will only do so after the plaintiff-prisoner has contributed 25 percent of his or her recovery.”
The real cost is to deterrence, Shapiro said.
In an amicus brief Shapiro filed with the court, he noted that “approximately one of every five prisoners reported suffering such abuse,” including some “26,000 incidents of reported staff sexual abuse of prisoners.” What happened at Abu Ghraib prison happens in the U.S., too, Shapiro told Bloomberg Law, referring to the mistreatment and torture of Muslim prisoners by U.S. personnel at the infamous Iraqi prison.
The court’s opinion weakens one of the few tools we have to combat that kind of abuse, Shapiro said.
The court parsed the word “satisfy” in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995‘s fee-shifting provision to come to that result.
To “satisfy” an obligation “usually means to discharge the obligation in full,” the court said. Therefore, the judgment funds must be applied with the purpose to satisfy the attorneys’ fee award in full, it said.
To “meet that duty, a district court must apply as much of the judgment as necessary to satisfy the fee award, without of course exceeding the 25% cap,” it concluded.
“But the phrase ‘to satisfy’” doesn’t “bear the weight the majority places on it,” Sotomayor said in dissent.
The phrase often means simply to be “applied toward the satisfaction of,” she said. Read that way, the judgment funds need only be applied with the purpose of satisfying some of the attorneys’ fee award, Sotomayor said—not all.
That would give judges discretion to determine the appropriate amount of judgment funds to apply to the attorneys’ fee award based on the circumstances of the case.
The court’s contrary ruling means prisoner Charles Murphy will have to pay an additional $45,000 out of his civil rights judgment to his attorneys.
Murphy was awarded more than $300,000 after prison officers Robert Smith and Gregory Fulk beat him and left him in a cell. Murphy’s vision never fully recovered, Sotomayor said.
The court also awarded Murphy more than $100,000 in attorneys fees and ordered him to pay 10 percent—approximately $30,000—of his judgment funds to satisfy that award.
That number now goes up to $77,000.
The case is Murphy v. Smith , U.S., No. 16-1067, 2/21/18 .
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jessie Kokrda Kamens at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)