Balla v. Idaho

• Decision Date: 17 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–35413.,10–35413.
• Citation: 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4848,677 F.3d 910,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4160
• Parties: Walter D. BALLA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. State of IDAHO; Idaho State Board of Correction, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4160

2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4848

677 F.3d 910

Walter D. BALLA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.State of IDAHO; Idaho State Board of Correction, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 10–35413.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2011.Filed April 17, 2012.

Mark A. Kubinski, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, ID, for the appellants.

Jason E. Prince, Stoel Rives LLP, Boise, ID, for the appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:81–cv–01165–BLW.Before: ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW,^* Circuit Judges.

OPINION

KLEINFELD, Senior Circuit Judge:

We address an attorneys' fees award in a class action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Facts

This is a class action, more than a quarter century old, by Idaho state prisoners at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). The district court initially “was not successful in obtaining attorney representation” ¹ for the prisoners, so they litigated pro se. They went to trial and won their case. The court found, in 1984, that because of deliberate indifference, without any connection to a legitimate penological purpose, the inmates were subjected to needless pain and suffering, on account of inadequate medical and psychiatric care.² That, plus overcrowding, and inadequate attention to housing and security, contributed to stabbings, assaults, gang rape, and sexual slavery.³ Close custody (the classification for especially dangerous or vulnerable prisoners) was so badly managed that “[v]irtually every young man assigned to that custody level was brutally raped.” ⁴ The court issued an injunction to remedy the constitutional violations.⁵

Subsequently the court held hearings on compliance.⁶ The prisoners were still pro se.⁷ In 1987, the district court ruled that overcrowding had worsened, to the point where it amounted to “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” ⁸ The court now made the injunction more precise and specific to each housing unit of the prison.⁹ The court specifically limited double-celling—that is, two inmates in one cell—for some classifications, and also limited the number of prisoners housed in some units.¹⁰ The court expressed particular concern about housing “close custody inmates,” who “are often volatile, violent and predatory,” with others upon whom these prisoners preyed.¹¹

The injunction remained in effect in 2008 and 2009, when the facts giving rise to this case occurred. The injunction prohibited, among other things: (1) putting “close custody” prisoners two in a cell instead of one in a cell, or housing more than 78 inmates in Unit 9; (2) housing more than 108 inmates in Units 10 or 11; and (3) housing more than 144 inmates in Unit 13.¹² The State was further enjoined from using “any other vehicle, scheme or mechanism designed to undermine the spirit and letter” of the injunction. ¹³ No question has been raised in this case regarding the continuing validity of the injunction.

The State of Idaho moved in 2007 to terminate the twenty-year-old injunction. The district court noted that it had previously appointed the Portland law firm, Stoel Rives LLP, to represent the prisoner class, “and the law firm worked on the litigation for almost two years without being paid for its work.” The firm subsequently was awarded a portion of the fees it had earned, and withdrew as counsel. Because of the State's motion, the court determined that counsel was again necessary and gave notice that “the Court will attempt to locate counsel for Plaintiffs.”

In April 2007, the State withdrew its motion to terminate the injunction. Evidently the injunction was still required to rectify constitutional violations, despite the injunction's decades-long duration. The district court concluded that it “must appoint counsel to represent the interests of the class members because the inmates cannot proceed pro se.” After a lack of success finding anyone else, and considering Stoel Rives's experience and competence at representing the inmates, the court reappointed the firm. Stoel Rives submitted several interim bills. After considering objections to particular charges, the court ordered payment of amounts it calculated to be due. Those interim awards have not been appealed.

This appeal arises out of a crisis at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. Idaho had been housing 650 of its prisoners in private prisons in Texas and Oklahoma. Idaho decided to terminate contracts with the private prison operators in those states, both out of a desire to save money and because of concerns about staff shortages at the private prisons. In October 2008, the State terminated the Texas contract and notified the Texas prison operator that it would remove the prisoners by January 5. But Idaho did not then have facilities in which to house the Texas prisoners. By late November, with the return date less than two months away, the Department of Correction had decided that it would convert a warehouse on the prison grounds, formerly used as an upholstery shop, into a new housing unit, to be called “Unit 24.” The plan was to have a big open area housing all the prisoners in bunk beds. Inmates would use toilet facilities in two trailers outside the building.

Stoel Rives learned of the upholstery warehouse plan from the newspapers. On December 11, the firm wrote the deputy attorney general handling the case that the plan would appear to violate the prohibition in the injunction against double-celling and against housing inmates on “nondesigned cell areas,” that is, areas not originally intended to be used as cells. Counsel asked the State for an explanation in hopes of avoiding litigation. The State responded that it would make the project manager available for a meeting, though “due to the holidays, the time for such a meeting is somewhat limited,” to December 22, 23, 28 or 29. A December 22 meeting left a number of issues unresolved. In a January 2 email, the State advised Stoel Rives that 200 inmates would live in the converted warehouse, construction was progressing but incomplete, and that the two planned outbuildings for bathroom facilities were not yet ready.

The State arranged to bring the prisoners back from Texas before the modifications to the warehouse and the toilet facilities could be completed. Before the Texas prisoners arrived, it moved 200 prisoners from other units of the Idaho prison into the warehouse, since it planned to house some of the Texas prisoners in preexisting units. The conversion project was behind schedule, but the State did not reschedule the return of the Texas prisoners. Only one of the two planned outdoor bathroom trailers was on-site, and it was not functioning. Because the bathroom outbuildings were not yet ready, the 200 inmates already moved into the warehouse would have to share 4 toilets, 3 urinals, and 4 sinks already built into the warehouse, and would have to be transported to other units for showers. The inmates who were moved into the warehouse were notified only about 45 minutes in advance that they would be moving. Correctional officers confiscated valuable electronic items for storage elsewhere. There was a shortage of plastic totes in which the prisoners were to store their personal effects. The bunk beds in the warehouse were lower quality than those in the other units. The district court found that many prisoners “were upset about their new living conditions.”

The State's plan failed immediately, even before the prisoners returning from Texas arrived. On January 2, after the lights were turned down for the night and within a few hours of being moved to the warehouse, the 200 inmates rioted. The prison lost control. The riot “tore the place apart.” Only two guards were in the warehouse unit. They retreated to a plexiglass-shielded control room, a protective structure in the partially converted upholstery shop. The inmates were unable to break through the plexiglass shield to get at the guards. But, “[u]ndaunted, inmates climbed onto the roof of the room and began to stomp a hole through the plywood.” Fortunately, before the inmates succeeded, the two guards broke a window with a shovel and escaped from the rioting prisoners. The inmates then broke through into the control room, set a small fire, and rushed through the exterior doors and out of the building.

The State now had an already overcrowded prison and a destroyed warehouse it had intended to use to accommodate the 300 returning Texas prisoners. They were still not back. Despite the now unusable converted warehouse facility, the state went ahead with flying 300 inmates back from Texas, there being no better alternative. The Texas facility had arranged to cease operating when the Idaho prisoners left, and the local jails in Idaho could not hold the incoming prisoners from Texas. When Stoel Rives had met with State officials and the district judge, the director of the Department of Correction said they would do “everything possible” to end the double-celling within 60 days. The director did not give an assurance of a date when the State would bring itself into compliance with the existing injunction, just an aspiration.

Because the upholstery shop had not been a subject of the injunction, the housing conditions there did not violate its express terms, though the conditions might have violated the “spirit and letter” catch-all clause. But because the riot had made it unusable, and the State had brought back the Texas inmates anyway, it violated the letter of the injunction by double-celling inmates in the preexisting units. The State acknowledged that it had violated the population limits in letters to both Stoel Rives and the Court on January 5, 2009, though it noted this was because the upholstery warehouse had been destroyed. Stoel Rives responded with letters and telephone calls to try to...