Madrid

Madrid v. Gomez

Good Law
150 F.3d 1030·98 Daily Journal DAR 7389·1998 WL 351214·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 14857·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5249
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 2, 1998Nos. 96-17277, 97-16237California6,154 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scannlain, J.

We must decide whether the attorney’s fee-limitations provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 apply to cases which were pending at the time of its enactment.

I

This case arose as a prisoner civil-rights class action challenging the conditions of confinement at the Pelican Bay State Prison in California. Plaintiffs-Appellees Madrid and others (“prisoners”) alleged a multitude of constitutional violations, including a pattern and practice of excessive force against them, provision of inadequate medical and psychiatric care, and failure to maintain humane housing conditions. After a three-month trial, the district court verified many of the prisoners’ complaints. Finding numerous constitutional infirmities, and concluding that Defendants-Appellants California Department of Corrections Director Gomez and others (“prison officials”) would not rectify these problems on their own, the court ordered the parties to collaborate in developing and implementing a remedial plan.

Anticipating that the district court would also order the prison officials to pay the prisoners’ legal expenses during the remedial phase — and seeking to minimize the procedural burdens associated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.