Young et al v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al
Filing
179
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' 177 Motion to Alter Judgment; Motion to Amend/Correct; Motion to Vacate is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 8/11/2015. (STC)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
LESLIE AND GERALD YOUNG,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.
**
**
Case No.
5:11-cv-00396-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
**
**
**
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ motion to
alter, vacate, or amend the Court’s Order dated May 19, 2015,
granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees.
Defendants’
motion has been fully briefed and the Court has considered the
matter.
The
Based on the following, the motion will be denied.
Defendants
arguments.
base
their
motion
to
reconsider
on
two
First, Defendants argue that, based on the limitations
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees
are capped at $6,465.
Additionally, Defendants contend that the
Court was required to hold a hearing prior to issuing an Order on
attorney’s fees, based on the Court’s statements during a pretrial
conference with the parties.
arguments in turn.
The Court will address each of these
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) contains certain
limitations on the award of attorney’s fees under § 1988 in “any
action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison,
or other correctional facility.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d).
Assuming
that Gerald Young is a prisoner as defined by the Act, the cases
cited by Defendants do not demonstrate that that the PLRA’s
attorney’s fees limitations apply when the action is brought
jointly
by
a
prisoner
and
a
non-prisoner—namely,
plaintiff in this matter, Leslie Young.
the
other
Rather, the available
case law indicates that when a non-prisoner is a co-plaintiff from
the outset of litigation, the PLRA does not apply.
See Turner v.
Wilkinson, 92 F. Supp. 2d 697, 704 (S.D. Ohio 1999), Hunter v.
Cnty. Of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-457, 2013 WL 5597134, *10 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 11, 2013); but see Montcalm Publ’g. Corp. v. Virginia,
199 F.3d 168, 172 (4th Cir. 1999) (PLRA did limit attorney’s fees
when a non-prisoner intervened in a suit that two prisoners had
initiated).
As in Turner, this cannot be characterized as a suit
“brought by a prisoner” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
Additionally, the Court notes that there would be no discernable
way to separate the attorney’s fees expended on behalf of the two
plaintiffs, as all of the work done was performed to obtain a
single remedy benefiting both Plaintiffs equally.
F. Supp. 2d at 704.
Accordingly, the PLRA does not apply.
2
See Turner, 92
Defendants also argue that the Court’s award of attorney’s
fees to Plaintiffs is unfair in light of the absence of a hearing,
which was discussed in a status conference on February 5, 2015.
Although Defendants contend that they “repeated and strenuously
objected to the award of fees and costs to the Plaintiffs,” no
specifics were discussed during the conference of February 5.
Rather, the parties voiced their inability to come to an agreement
on the issue of attorney’s fees in general terms.
When the
Defendants failed to file the required response to Plaintiffs’
well-supported motion for attorney’s fees,1 the Court assumed that
any disagreement regarding attorney’s fees had been resolved and
that a hearing was no longer needed.
Further, if Defendants had wished to have a hearing on the
matter of attorney’s fees, they would have been well advised to
make a motion for a hearing, as opposed to doing nothing in
response to Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees.
Additionally,
based on defense counsel’s previous conduct throughout this matter
(e.g., conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions) the Court
can only see this argument as disingenuous.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion, [DE 177]
is hereby DENIED.
1
Joint Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(c) provides that “[a] party opposing
a motion must file a response memorandum within twenty-one (21) days of service
of the motion. Failure to respond to a motion may be grounds for granting the
motion.”
3
This the 11th day of August, 2015.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?