Balla v. Idaho
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7644
9th Cir.2012Background
- This is a long-standing class action by Idaho prisoners challenging prison conditions and an injunction enforcing remedial relief.
- The district court repeatedly ordered monitoring and later awarded interim attorney's fees for Stoel Rives during injunctive monitoring.
- In 2008–2009 Idaho moved to address overcrowding; a warehouse conversion (Unit 24) plan led to a riot and compliance issues.
- The state violated the injunction by double-celling inmates; after protests and a contempt motion, the state brought itself into compliance.
- Plaintiffs sought attorney's fees for post-judgment monitoring and for work on the contempt motion, which the district court partially granted.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews whether post-judgment monitoring and fees for a losing contempt motion are permissible under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether monitoring fees post-judgment are compensable after Buckhannon | Stoel Rives' monitoring advanced relief won by injunction. | Buckhannon bars fees if no new judgment/order or relief. | Monitoring fees may be compensable; not categorically barred. |
| Whether fees for a denied contempt motion can be awarded under PLRA | Work enforcing relief after injunctive relief was obtained is compensable. | Fees for losing motions are not recoverable. | Fees for losing but causally enforcing relief can be awarded. |
| How the Buckhannon-Delaware Valley-Webb framework applies to post-judgment enforcement fees | Delaware Valley remains controlling; Buckhannon does not overrule it in this context. | Buckhannon restricts prevailing-party fees for voluntary change. | Courts may award fees for enforcing relief after injunction; Delaware Valley reconciled with Buckhannon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court 2001) (catalyst theory cannot alone confer prevailing-party status)
- Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 478 U.S. 546 (Supreme Court 1986) (fee awards for postjudgment monitoring under civil rights statute)
- Webb v. Ada County, 285 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) (fees for enforcing relief ordered may be compensable)
- Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1987) (post-judgment monitoring of a consent decree awardable)
- Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010) (monitoring fees for compliance with settlement are recoverable)
- Alliance To End Repression v. City of Chicago, 356 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2004) (monitoring without a judgment or order is not automatically compensable)
- Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 489 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2007) (rejection of Alliance view; Delaware Valley reconciled with Buckhannon)