Kelly v. Wengler, No. 13-35972 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed a putative class action against CCA under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that CCA staffed the Idaho Corrections Center (ICC) with an inadequate number of security guards, in deliberate indifference to the health and safety of prisoners. After the parties settled, CCA agreed to staff ICC with a specified number of security personnel. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. The district court subsequently held CCA in contempt for falsifying staffing reports, ordered remedial measures, and awarded plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the terms of which were incorporated into the district court’s dismissal order. The court also concluded that the extension of the settlement agreement is a compensatory civil sanction. Rather than punishing CCA, this sanction sought to return plaintiffs as nearly as possible to the position they would have occupied had CCA not violated the agreement. By extending the settlement agreement for two years, the district court thus ordered the relief to which plaintiffs were originally entitled under the agreement but that CCA had failed to provide. The court concluded that the remedies remain narrowly drawn, necessary, and the least intrusive means to rectify CCA’s continued Eighth Amendment violations. In regard to attorney's fees, the court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. 3626, allows enhancement of the lodestar figure in appropriate circumstances; while the PLRA limits the hours and the hourly rate used in calculating the lodestar figure, it does not cap the total amount of attorney’s fees awards in cases seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and it continues to authorize a court to enhance the lodestar figure based on non-subsumed factors; and even when an enhancement is appropriate it may not be based on considerations already subsumed in the PLRA rate. In this case, the district court provided clear reasons, supported by specific evidence in the record, for enhancing the lodestar figure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the contempt order and the order awarding attorney's fees.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s contempt order and its order awarding plaintiffs attorney’s fees, which the district court entered after finding that defendants in the underlying putative class action, Timothy Wengler and the Corrections Corporation of America, Inc., had violated a settlement agreement. In the underlying § 1983 action, plaintiffs alleged that defendants staffed the Idaho Corrections Center with an inadequate number of security guards, in deliberate indifference to the health and safety of prisoners. The parties settled, and defendants agreed to staff Idaho Corrections Center with a specified number of security personnel. After learning that staffing reports at Idaho Corrections Center had been falsified over a seven-month post-settlement period, KELLY V. WENGLER 3 plaintiffs moved the district court to hold defendants in contempt. The panel held that defendants’ non-compliance with the settlement agreement justified a finding of contempt. The panel held that defendants failed to take all reasonable steps that would have allowed it to discover that records had been falsified. The panel held that the district court’s ordered remedy – the extension of the settlement agreement for two years – was a compensatory civil sanction that returned plaintiffs to the position they would have occupied had defendants not violated the agreement from its inception. The modification of the settlement agreement was well within the court’s inherent power and was narrowly drawn, necessary, and the least intrusive means to rectify defendants’ continued Eighth Amendment violations. Affirming the award of attorney’s fees, the panel held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows enhancement of the lodestar figure in appropriate circumstances. While the Act limits the hours and the hourly rate used in calculating the lodestar figure, it does not cap the total amount of attorney’s fees awards in cases seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and it continues to authorize a court to enhance the lodestar figure based on non-subsumed factors. The panel concluded that in this case the district court provided clear reasons, supported by specific evidence in the record, for enhancing the lodestar figure. 4 KELLY V. WENGLER
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.