Prison Legal News v. Ken Stolle, 681 F. App'x 182

Prison Legal News (PLN) publishes a monthly magazine aimed at inmates; Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office (VBSO) prohibited delivery to inmates under policies banning “sexually explicit” materials and regulating ordering forms.
PLN sued Sheriff Kenneth Stolle and subordinates under § 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations over exclusion of its magazine.
The district court held VBSO’s prior “sexually explicit” policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and found procedural due process violations in the publication-review process, issuing permanent injunctive relief and later a consent decree restoring delivery of future issues.
The district court granted PLN prevailing-party status for fee purposes, calculated a lodestar, but reduced the fee award by 45% to account for the limited nature of PLN’s success (no monetary damages recovered and defendant success defending the “ordering forms” policy).
PLN appealed the 45% reduction as arbitrary and improper because it allegedly did not primarily seek money damages; the Fourth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PLN was a prevailing party entitled to fees	PLN argued its injunctive relief made it a prevailing party	Defendants conceded lack of money damages but argued successful defenses limited relief	Court: PLN was a prevailing party because it secured permanent injunctive relief and consent decree
Proper application of McAfee/Hensley framework for fees	PLN argued fee reduction was unfair because it did not primarily seek money damages	Defendants argued reduction warranted because PLN pursued monetary relief and defendants succeeded on some claims	Court: District court properly applied lodestar and reduced fee for limited success; no abuse of discretion
Whether lack of monetary recovery should heavily reduce fees	PLN contended reduction penalized it despite injunctive victories	Defendants pointed to plaintiff’s pursuit of nominal/punitive damages and successful defense of ordering-forms policy	Court: District court permissibly considered lack of monetary recovery and defendants’ successes in tailoring reduction
Whether 45% reduction was arbitrary	PLN claimed the percentage was arbitrary and unsupported	Defendants maintained the reduction reflected comparative successes and limitations of relief	Court: Reduction was supported by concise reasoning and within district court’s broad discretion

McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81 (4th Cir.) (three-step framework for § 1988 fee awards)
Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir.) (appellate review of fee awards is for abuse of discretion)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (extent of plaintiff's success is the most critical factor in fee awards; courts must explain adjustments)
Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) (plaintiff's subjective motives not relevant to prevailing-party status or extent of relief)
Brodziak v. Runyon, 145 F.3d 194 (4th Cir.) (standards for reversing fee awards)