Case No. 16-1067 | 7th Cir. Decision
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, when a prisoner brings a successful civil rights lawsuit and is awarded a monetary sum, a portion of that sum, not to exceed twenty-five percent, is supposed to be used to satisfy any attorneys’ fees that may have been awarded to the plaintiff’s lawyers. The question currently creating a split among the circuits is what “not to exceed twenty-five percent” of the award means. Whether it means up to 25% or exactly 25%.
Charles Murphy was a prisoner at the Vandalia Correctional Center in Illinois. On July 25th, 2011, he reported a mess at his assigned seat and was told to clean it up and leave the dining area. He was handcuffed and escorted into a segregation unit. Upon arrival, Murphy ignored officers’ inquiries about where he normally resided. The officer repeatedly inserted his finger into Murphy’s ear asking him if he was deaf. Then, Murphy was escorted by three officers and was taunted by another about what would happen next time his handcuffs came off. The officer hit Murphy in the eye, applied a chokehold, and Murphy passed out. While unconscious he was pushed into a cell.
Thirty minutes later, a nurse checked on Murphy. The orbital rim of his eye was crushed and required surgery. He did not completely recover and continues to have doubled and blurred vision. Murphy sued the officer who hit him, and another officer, and a jury returned a verdict for Murphy of $307,733.82. The District Court also awarded attorneys’ fees and indicated that ten percent of the verdict must be applied to those fees.
One of the issues reviewed on appeal was whether the District Court was proper in deciding that it had discretion to determine what percentage of the verdict was to be applied toward the attorneys’ fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), reads that “[w]henever a monetary judgement is awarded in an action . . . a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”
The Seventh Circuit cited a previous en banc ruling in which it decided that the amount was not discretionary and that the full twenty-five percent must be first be applied from the verdict before the defendant can be required to contribute more. See Johnson v. Daley, 339 F.3d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Second, Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits, however, have held that the phrase “not to exceed 25 percent” means any amount up to twenty-five percent and not exactly twenty-five percent. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case and determine which reading of the statute is correct and bring some clarity to the circuit courts.