Woods v. Carey, No. 09-16113 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe parties dispute whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2), limited the amount that plaintiff, a prisoner who qualified as a prevailing party who would ordinarily be entitled to an award of attorney's fees, could recover from defendant for attorney's fees incurred in defending his judgment on appeal to 150 percent of the monetary relief awarded to him at trial. The court held that the fee cap in section (d)(2) did not apply to attorney's fees earned in conjunction with an appeal in which prison officials sought unsuccessfully to reverse a verdict obtained by the prisoner before the district court. The court granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees on appeal and referred the matter to the Appellate Commissioner to determine the amount of such fees, as well as the amount of reimbursable costs.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights/Attorney’s Fees. Granting a prisoner’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal, the panel held that the 150 percent cap on attorney’s fees set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), does not apply to fees incurred on appeal by a prisoner who successfully defends the verdict that he obtained in the district court. Judge Murguia dissented, stating that the majority decision runs counter to the plain meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)’s text, and that the opinion has created a circuit split. See Riley v. Kurtz, 361 F.3d 906, 916–18 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding § 1997e(d)(2)’s 150% cap includes any attorney’s fees a prisoner incurs defending a monetary judgment on appeal).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.