Document: 527 U.S. 343119 S.Ct. 1998144 L.Ed.2d 347 143 F.3d 246, affirmed in part and reversed part. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 262 BILL MARTIN, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS, et al., PETITIONERSv.EVERETT HADIX al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR SIXTH CIRCUIT [June 21, 1999] Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of Court.* 1 Section 803(d)(3) Prison Litigation Reform Act 1995 (PLRA or Act), 110 Stat. 1321 66, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. II), places limits on fees that may be awarded to attorneys who litigate prisoner lawsuits. We are asked decide how this section applies cases were pending when PLRA became effective April 26, 1996. conclude §803(d)(3) attorney's with respect postjudgment monitoring services performed after PLRA's date but it does not so limit for before date. 2 * The fee disputes us arose out two class action lawsuits challenging conditions confinement Michigan prison system. first case, which we will call Glover, began 1977 a now-certified female prisoners filed suit under Rev. §1979, 1983 United States District Court Eastern Michigan. Glover plaintiffs alleged defendant officials had violated their rights Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment by denying them access vocational educational opportunities available male prisoners. They also claimed defendants denied right courts. After bench trial, found "[s]ignificant discrimination against population" violation Clause, v. Johnson, 478 F. 1075, 1083 (1979), concluded defendants' policies meaningful courts, id., at 1096 1097. In 1981, entered "Final Order" detailing specific actions undertaken remedy constitutional violations. 510 1019 (ED Mich.). One year later, court "prevailing parties" thus entitled 1988 ed. II). Civ. Action 77 71229 Mich., Feb. 2, 1982), App. 103a. 3 1985, parties agreed to, entered, an order providing compliance court's remedial decrees. Nov. 12, 1985), 125a (Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion System Submission Attorney Fee). This established system awarding was place present dispute arose. Under system, submit requests semiannual basis, then have 28 days any objections requested award. resolves disputes. Ibid. appeal from subsequent over meaning order, Appeals Sixth Circuit fees, prevailing market rate, monitoring. 934 F.2d 703, 715 716 (1991). rate has been adjusted years, is currently set $150 per hour. See Hadix 248 (CA6 1998) (describing facts Glover). 4 second case issue here, Hadix, 1980. At time, State Southern Michigan, Central Complex (SPSM CC), claiming SPSM CC First, Eighth, Amendments Constitution. Five years into consent decree " 'assure constitutionality' CC. 144 925, 930 (quoting decree). decree, approved Court, addressed variety issues CC, ranging sanitation safety food service, mail, 5 November 1987, decree. 80 CV 73581 19, 1987), 79a. Subsequently, through procedure similar plaintiffs: submitted requests, timely these resolved set, periodically adjusted, awards; 1995, hour lead counsel. 65 532, 536 1995). 6 Thus, parallel paths. both cases, those basis. Moreover, rates fees. By time enacted, 7 landscape changed passage PLRA, as its name suggests, contains numerous provisions governing course litigation federal It provides, example, availability certain types relief such suits, see 18 3626(a)(2) III), termination prospective orders limited §3626(b). §803(d)(3), cap size suits: 8 "(d) Attorney's 9 "(1) brought confined jail, prison, other correctional facility, authorized [42 1988], shall awarded, except extent [authorized here]. 10 . 11 "(3) No award described paragraph (1) based hourly greater than 150 percent [18 3006A 12 III)], payment court-appointed counsel." §803(d), 1997e(d) 13 Court-appointed compensated maximum $75 hour, thus, working suits translates $112.50. 14 Questions involving enacted. early 1996, work during last half 1995. These still did prior Act. June 3, 1996), 148a; May 30, 91a. interpretation appeal. 138 229, 249 251 (1998); F.3d, 946 948. 15 Fee next between January 1, period encompassing PLRA. As relevant state argued subject accepted argument nearly identical issued reiterated earlier conclusion Case Dec. 4, Pet. Cert. 27a; 33a. 16 consolidated appeals orders, and, 246 (1998). According Appeals, limitation apply relate enactment. If applied held, would impermissible retroactive effect, regardless performed. 250 256. 17 Appeals' holding do inconsistent holdings Circuits issues. For Courts Fourth Ninth held §803(d) caps all ordered paid enactment even compensate Alexander S. Boyd, 113 1373, 1385 1388 (CA4 1997), cert. denied, 522 1090 Madrid Gomez, 1030 (CA9 1998). Blissett Casey, 147 218 (CA2 necessarily rendered date), pending, 527; Inmates D. C. Jail Jackson, 158 1357, 1360 (CADC (holding Act, suggesting dicta 917. granted certiorari resolve conflicts. 525 ___ respondents, petitioners. II Petitioners contend fact pattern presents recurring question law: When should new statute cases? See, e.g., Lindh Murphy, 521 320 (1997); Hughes Aircraft Co. ex rel. Schumer, 520 939 (1997). To answer question, ask "whether Congress expressly prescribed statute's proper reach." Landgraf USI Film Products, 511 244, 280 (1994). there no congressional directive temporal reach statute, determine whether application conduct result effect. so, keeping our ''traditional presumption'' retroactivity, presume conduct. supra, 946. 19 20 mandated §803(d)(3). 803(d)(1) provides "[i]n [to facility] except" statute. further "[n]o 3006A], language particularly phrase con- 21 fined," §803(d)(1) (emphasis added) clearly expresses intent cases. argue "any" broad, word, use "brought," past-tense verb, demonstrates limitations awards effective, own terms, "award[s]" understood actual directing 22 fundamental problem petitioners' statutory arguments they stretch find scope believe better read setting substantive 803(d)(1), prohibits unless "directly reasonably incurred" suit, "proportionately related" incurred enforcing" ordered. 1997e(d)(1). Similarly, sets prohibiting specified rate. words, sections define fees; purport limitations. falls short demonstrating "clear intent" favoring Landgraf, U.S., 280. short, "unambiguous directive" "express command" retroactively. Id., 263, 23 event, note used section, verb; rather, participle participial modifying noun "action." And although word stretches imagination suggest intended, one make applicable awards. Finally, award" (i.e., orders) Had intended date, could more obviously targeted addressing section. stated, "No ceiling rate." 24 express retroactively strengthened comparing suggested might qualify clear statement retroactively: "[T]he proceedings commenced enactment." 260 (internal quotation marks omitted). provision, unlike unambiguously addresses With analogous making explicit reference reach, cannot said "expressly prescribed" §803(d)'s reach. 25 Respondents agree lacks retroactively, reveals prospectively only. That is, respondents insist demonstrate only evident study Act's structure legislative history. 26 comparison §§802 803 leads §803 above, contrast, §802 "appropriate remedies" explicitly cases: "[This section] originally before, on, title." §802(b)(1), following 3626 III). presence command §802, coupled §803's silence, supports negative inference buttress "negative inference" history provisions. drafted, contained Later, moved what without according language, demonstrated Brief 18. 27 Respondents' analogy decision Lindh, considered chapter 153 newly enacted Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty 1996 (AEDPA), 1214, concluding relied heavily observation 154 AEDPA includes "[n]othing different explains treatment." 329. carried special weight because chapters issues: Chapter standards review habeas corpus applications prisoners, created capital sentences. Because "govern[ed] affecting entitlement relief" "[i]f concerned ensure just about 153." address wholly distinct matters, same arise silence §803. 802 "[a]ppropriate litigation, prohibiting, "narrowly drawn" "the least intrusive means necessary correct violation." §802(a), 3626(a)(1)(A) creates designed encourage prompt providing, "immediate if absence finding narrowly drawn, extends Federal right, right." 3626(b)(2). 803(d), propriety various forms provide immediate ongoing orders. Rather, governs reason "have concerned" 29 respondents' reliance overstates inferences can drawn ambiguous act drafting. Even history, draw speculative. rests assumption move away applying reasons. weak thin reed rest provisions, implication, prospectively. B 30 280, must effects usual rule legislation deemed prospective. inquiry operates demands common sense, functional judgment provision attaches legal consequences events completed 270. informed guided "familiar considerations fair notice, reasonable reliance, settled expectations." 31 construed effect contrary statutes operation. expectation pre-PLRA provided stipulated order. Long declared parties, establishing rates, specifically counsel task told lawyers worked schedule. alter arrangement post hoc reducing compensation. give limitations, fact, "attac[h] consequences" 32 contest conclusion. 'unquestionably proper,' 273), questions "are incidental independent from, underlying cause action." not, change obligations "collateral main 277) Attaching label "collateral" advance retroactivity inquiry, however. While possible generalize rules ordinarily raise concerns, see, 273 275, generalizations end inquiry. acknowledged procedural often problems, cautioned mere mean every case," n. 29. took pains dispel "sugges[tion] concerns rules." 327 328. determining enough attach (e.g., "procedural," "collateral") statute; 33 Bradley School Bd. Richmond, 416 696 (1974), support misplaced. Bradley, general equitable principles, group parents prevailed seeking desegregation Richmond schools. appeal, passed authorizing school authorize law, reversed, proper. available, albeit already invoking manifest injustice allowing case. 720 721. upset expectations parties. 276 279 (distinguishing grounds). beginning proceeded govern. until well impose now, 34 problem. On plaintiffs' notice adjusted. From point forward, consistent dictates law. compensation unreasonable. There telling attorney performing that, going she earn lower earned past. wish perform new, lower, pay choose work. future work; concerns. 35 context (a rate) pre-enactment affected initial file behalf clients. 31. assuming, arguendo, 1980, particular schedule pre-PLRA, rate" schedule), affects fails client irrevocable one. assumes once files continue terminated. assumption, allude ethical constraints ability withdraw midstream, ("And finally, commit themselves ethically continued representation clients Constitution honored, lightly altered"), seriously here prohibited withdrawing stage, Tr. Oral Arg. 43. changes attorneys' C 36 sum, scope. prospective, decline so. Accordingly, 37 Notes 38 *. reasons stated his separate opinion, Scalia joins Parts I, A, opinion. Ginsburg's Stevens join A 39 Opinion Scalia, J. 40 concurring judgment. 41 Our (PLRA), prescribes [brought III)] I forth text outcome therefore governed interpretive principle indication, application, But leaves open key question: what? options include upon fee-imposing (applying occurred giving "retroactive application"); (2) lawyer's undertaking prosecute lawyer retained (3) filing imposed (4) doing payable done (5) application"). 43 My disagreement Court's approach deciding above five points determination ought selected, seems me much help frustrate expectations. varying degrees, would. explained my concurrence 286 (opinion judgments), think (which "retroactivity event") select turn activity regulate. affect primary conduct, govern; induce undertake representation, forth. 44 view, most precisely defined purpose reduce previously incentive prisoners' civil viewed isolation, course, regarded being simply prevent judicial excess referenced amount event reality, however, revises §1988, govern amendment appropriate (among cases) suits.1 offered.2 All assurance former §1988 reimbursed rates; revised rates. announcement permit billed higher operated futuro; sought regulate rather adjudicate less revision injunction. Pennsylvania Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., How. 421, 436 (1856). 45 reasons, concur Part 46 1. Although party lawyer, enable offer attract attorneys. 47 2. reject dissent's contention represent plaintiff. merely signing (no that) actually Like true signed terminate representation; he assuredly says longer upon. 48 Ginsburg, 49 whom joins, dissenting 50 III) "limit [Act's] date," ante, reasoning disagree, "limits date." satisfactory basis meant midstream change, placing law regime. affirm full Circuit, inapplicable explain view retread some factual analytical ground treated detail 51 President Clinton 803(d) provides: 52 title, 53 "(A) directly proving plaintiff's protected pursuant title; 54 "(B)(i) proportionately related violation; 55 "(ii) enforcing violation. 56 "(2) Whenever monetary (1), portion (not exceed percent) satisfy defendant. judgment, 57 title 58 post-April 1075 Mich. 1979), inmates (State) 1977; principally afforded counterparts, Clause. Ruling favor, jurisdiction substantial 1019, 1020 1981). 1985 ruling awards, costs twice yearly. 59 §1983 alleging Ninth, Amendments. sanitation, health care, fire safety, overcrowding, access, aspects life. remain responsible 249. 60 Counsel court-approved market-based level 27a, objected, arguing litigations $112.50 34a. opinions, refused 28a, 1; 34a, thereafter, 31a, 41a. 61 Relying recent 229 (1998), refusal pre-enactment. 248. post-enactment. 255 Unpersuaded panel "is statute." 62 244 (1994), reaffirmed longstanding presumption "If [a] operate retroactively," "our traditional teaches absent result." 63 Emphasizing "any confined," insists plain terms reveal Congress' 15. recognizes, brought" refers provision's scope, 8; appears proximity identifying law's dimensions.1 easily specified, post-enactment limitation, 9, "shall Act." instead left unaddressed 64 Comparison neighboring §802(b)(1) instructive face. 802(b)(1), "all 70, 3626. "Congress [thus] saw fit tell applied," i.e., §802. Jensen Clarke, 94 1191, 1203 (CA8 1996). implication dispositive, nevertheless suggests carryback thrust. Absent respecting teaches, effect." 15, impermissibly retroactive. Instead anticipated old regime, long ago recognized interpreting Heth, Cranch 399, 408 409 (1806) (precluding, retroactive, customs collectors' commissions collected enactment, commission due date). III 66 soundly cover representations Application [an] even[t] [the statute's] enactment"; hence Landgraf. critical effected client's claim. Applying matters significantly alters embarked.2 Notably, engaged little leeway response regime; initiated prisoner's remains professional obligation final disposition. American Bar Association Model Rules Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3, Comment [3] (1999) ("[A] carry client."). Counsel's "inextricab[ly] law." 1362 (Wald, J., dissenting). 67 readily apparent regarding thereafter frustrates Consider, reform pre-PLRA. Both prevailed, lawsuit progressed swiftly, labor-intensive pretrial discovery other, lagged fault counsel, disposition threshold motions, unable pursue 1996.3 prosecuted claims diligence; obliged, having representations, seek scarcely other. Nor similarly situated differently. 68 avoids dismissing unsupported assertion 16. me, secure support. 69 ABA's Rules, 83.20(j) (1999), good terminating "a client." Prof. 1.3 withdrawal permitted where unreasonable financial burden lawyer," 1.16(b)(5), explanatory comments exception situations refuses abide agreement relating concerning fees," 1.16 Consistent petitioners oral natural ("[Continuing representation] involve certainly, especially the[se] circumstance[s]."). abandoned nor trial withdraw. 1.16(c) ("When tribunal, representation."). it, pursuit obligation, enduring post-PLRA, representation. 70 resisted "sophisticated construction," 252, split apart, purposes, constant triggering purposes," am persuaded, undertakes Jail, 71 72 Landgraf's lesson speak wants hold 73 unenacted discussed made 'to after' linked "all" qualified tied discussion permissible here. 74 An invest energy involves complex balance factors, including likelihood success, labor completion, potential recovery. effectively reduces value investment disappoints undertaking. 75 3. counsel's caused delay protraction, properly exercise discretion deny fee. 1988(b) II) ("[T]he court, discretion, allow fee.").

Category: 5