Bill Martin, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, et al. v. Everett Hadix et al. (527 U.S. 343)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 21, 1999 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 527 U.S. 343 · 119 S. Ct. 1998
- Decided
- June 21, 1999
- Term
- October Term 1998
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Attorneys
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 803(d)(3) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA or Act), 110 Stat. 1321-72, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(d)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. III), places limits on the fees that may be awarded to attorneys who litigate prisoner lawsuits. We are asked to decide how this section applies to cases that were pending when the PLRA became effective on April 26, 1996. We conclude that § 803(d)(3) limits attorney’s fees with respect to postjudgment monitoring services performed after the PLRA’s effective date but it does not so limit fees for postjudgment monitoring performed before the effective date. I The fee disputes before us arose out of two class action lawsuits challenging the conditions of confinement in the Michigan prison system. The first case, which we will call Glover, began in 1977 when a now-certified elass of female prisoners filed suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Glover plaintiffs alleged that the defendant prison officials had violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them access to vocational and educational opportunities that were available to male prisoners. They also claimed that the defendants had denied them their right of access to the courts. After a bench trial,…
Excerpt of a 30,153-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.