Earnest Woods, Ii v. Santos Cervantes
722 F.3d 1177
9th Cir.2013Background
- Woods II, a prisoner, prevailed in district court against Cervantes on an Eighth Amendment claim for denying medical/dental care.
- The district court awarded Woods $1,500 in compensatory and punitive damages; Woods appealed the judgment with counsel.
- Woods sought $16,800 in attorney’s fees and $521.09 in costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) on appeal.
- Cervantes contends the PLRA fee cap at 150% of the monetary judgment (§ 1997e(d)(2)) applies to appellate fees.
- Dannenberg v. Valadez held the cap applies only to fees incurred to secure a monetary judgment, not non-monetary relief.
- The court held that the § 1997e(d)(2) cap does not apply to appellate fees incurred defending a judgment on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1997e(d)(2) cap appellate fees? | Woods argues cap does not apply to appellate fees defending a monetary judgment. | Cervantes argues cap applies to all fees incurred in action with monetary relief, including appeal. | Cap does not apply to appellate fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dannenberg v. Valadez, 338 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2003) (fee cap limited to fees incurred to secure monetary judgment, not non-monetary relief)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court) (precedent on appellate attorney’s fees in civil rights cases)
- Corder v. Gates, 104 F.3d 247 (9th Cir. 1996) (rule governing appellate attorney’s fees in civil rights actions)