Jimenez v. Franklin
680 F.3d 1096
9th Cir.2012Background
- Jimenez, a prisoner plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. §1983, sued ten Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs for alleged constitutional violations during 1998 pretrial detention.
- Jury verdict found four defendants liable for damages; damages: Franklin $1; Duron $5,000 compensatory and $10,000 punitive; Bergner $50,000 compensatory and $50,000 punitive; Gonzalez $100,000 compensatory and $150,000 punitive; total damages $365,001.
- District court awarded $505,671.40 in attorney's fees and $24,595.94 in costs, with fees ordered joint and several to ensure payment to Jimenez’s counsel.
- County paid compensatory damages but paid punitive damages for three defendants and partially paid the fee award; the court ordered joint and several liability to secure payment of the fee award.
- Defendants appealed the judgment but did not challenge the joint-and-several fee liability; this court affirmed the fee award under §1988(b) and noted additional appellate fees.
- Afterward, Franklin sought full satisfaction arguing PLRA §1997e(d)(2) caps fees at 150% of each defendant’s damages; Duron and Bergner entered stipulations for full satisfaction as to their shares.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PLRA cap on fees affects the liability for fees when joint and several liability is imposed | Jimenez (plaintiff) | Franklin (defendant) | Waived; challenge to joint/several fee liability not raised on prior appeal; satisfaction vacated. |
| Whether §1997e(d)(2) caps apply to the total award or to each defendant’s individual damages | Plaintiff argues cap applies to total award | Defendants argue cap applies only to amounts exceeding 150% of each individual judgment | Statute limits the actual award, not merely the collection; cap applies to the liability amount, not just collection. |
| Whether the district court’s entry of full satisfaction of judgment as to some defendants was proper | Jimenez contends no proper full satisfaction where joint/several liability existed | Defendants argued cap and satisfaction were proper under PLRA | Satisfactions vacated; proper to challenge on appeal, not post-appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Munoz v. County of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1982) (failure to raise issue on prior appeal waives later challenge)
- Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603 (2d Cir. 2011) (PLRA cap can limit attorney’s fees awarded)
- Keup v. Hopkins, 596 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2010) (PLRA cap interpretation supporting award limitation)
- Parker v. Conway, 581 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2009) (PLRA cap interpretation supporting award limitation)
- Riley v. Kurtz, 361 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2004) (timely appeal required to challenge fee amount)