Eoff v. Mallett

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JUSTIN EOFF PLAINTIFF ADC #127564 v. CASE NO. 5:18-CV-00144-BSM

KEITH MALLETT DEFENDANT ORDER

Justin Eoff’s motion for attorney’s fees [Doc. No. 76] is granted, but the total award is limited to $338.75.

A plaintiff who prevails on a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim may recover reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. section 1988. When the plaintiff is a prisoner, however, any fee award is limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d). A prevailing plaintiff must pay his own attorney’s fees if the fees do not exceed 25% of the judgment. Id. Any fees in excess of 25% of the judgment must be paid by the defendant, but only up to a total fee amount of $150% of the judgment. Id. This 150% limit applies even when the plaintiff recovers only nominal damages. See Keup v. Hopkins, 596 F.3d 899, 905 (8th Cir. 2010).

The judgment entered for Eoff against Keith Mallet consisted of $1 in nominal damages and $270 in punitive damages, for a total of $271. See Doc. No. 74. The maximum fee on which any award must be based is 150% of the $271 judgment, and so it is $406.50. Eoff is responsible for the first 25% of the judgment, which is $67.75. See Murphy v. Smith, 138 S.Ct. 784, 787 (2018) (holding district courts must apply judgment funds toward the fee award up to the 25% cap). Eoff may, however, recover the balance of the $406.50 from Mallett, which is $338.75. Although a reasonable fee for Eoff’s attorney far exceeds this amount, the PLRA precludes any further recovery from Mallett.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2021.

Barrer ZB AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE