Joshua Kelly v. Timothy Wengler
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9381
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (putative class of ICC prisoners) sued CCA under § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference because ICC was understaffed; parties settled and the settlement was incorporated into a dismissal-with-prejudice order.
- Settlement required CCA to meet specific staffing levels (plus a discretionary 3-officer "Warden’s Crew"); the stipulation/dismissal order explicitly incorporated the settlement and a dispute-resolution clause preserving judicial enforcement.
- Post-settlement audits and investigations revealed falsified staffing records showing many mandatory post-hours left vacant (roughly 4,800 night-shift hours over seven months and additional day-shift vacancies).
- Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause; the district court (sitting by designation) found CCA in civil contempt for materially breaching the incorporated settlement, ordered remedial measures (including a two-year extension of the settlement and appointment of an independent monitor), and announced a fine schedule (never imposed).
- The district court awarded plaintiffs substantial attorney’s fees and costs, applying the PLRA-rate lodestar then enhancing it (2.0 multiplier for lead counsel, 1.3 for co-counsel) based on superior performance and the need to attract competent counsel in Idaho.
- CCA appealed, challenging jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the contempt finding/remedies, and the attorney-fee award under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement incorporated in a dismissal | Plaintiffs: incorporation of the settlement into the dismissal order preserved ancillary jurisdiction to enforce it | CCA: dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) ended federal jurisdiction so the settlement cannot be enforced by the court | Court: ancillary jurisdiction exists because the settlement was incorporated into the dismissal order and the parties agreed on enforcement procedure (Kokkonen applied) |
| Whether CCA’s violations supported a civil contempt finding | Plaintiffs: evidence (internal reports, witness testimony, ongoing vacancies) shows material breach and failure to take all reasonable steps to comply | CCA: it implemented corrective measures after discovering problems and thus should not be held in contempt | Court: contempt affirmed—CCA had not taken all reasonable steps earlier; corrective measures after discovery did not avoid contempt |
| Whether remedies (extension of settlement, fines) were civil/punitive or criminal and thus procedurally defective | Plaintiffs: remedies are remedial/compensatory and aimed at restoring benefits lost due to breach | CCA: extension and fine schedule are punitive (criminal) and required criminal-contempt protections | Court: remedies are civil (extension is compensatory); fine schedule was not imposed; contempt was civil, so no criminal protections required |
| Whether PLRA restricted court from enhancing lodestar fees beyond PLRA hourly-rate cap | Plaintiffs: PLRA limits base hours and hourly rate but does not bar lodestar enhancement under §1988 principles | CCA: PLRA caps fee awards and forbids upward adjustments beyond the PLRA rate | Court: PLRA limits hours and base hourly rate (PLRA rate) but does not bar enhancements for rare, exceptional reasons; enhancement permitted here for superior performance and to attract competent counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce orders that incorporate settlement terms)
- Int’l Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (distinguishing civil contempt from criminal contempt based on nature/purpose of sanction)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; rare circumstances may justify enhancement)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method for attorney’s fees)
- Jimenez v. Franklin, 680 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012) (application of PLRA fee limits to monetary-judgment cases)
- Vertex Distributing, Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982) (facts where remedial steps post-violation weighed against contempt finding)
- Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) (post-judgment contempt orders are appealable as final)