AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and
Detention Facilities
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Consent Decrees
Prisons in California
have operated under a receivership since 2006 to comply with consent decrees
concerning prison health care. The trial court ordered the state to disclose
its expert witnesses and their reports 120 days before moving to terminate
the decrees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The state appealed
the order, and the appeal was denied. The trial court's order was a sensible
scheduling order designed to allow the plaintiffs and the court adequate
notice of the evidence the state would rely on in support of its motion.
Plata v. Brown, #13-15466, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 9801 (9th Cir.).
The federal government
entered into a consent decree with the Virgin Islands in 1986 to attempt
to improve conditions at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility, including
unreasonable fire safety risks, physical violence by staff members and
prisoners, inadequate sanitation, and medical care. The trial court later
entered a number of additional orders when conditions at the facility failed
to improve as planned. Three years ago, in 2011, the Virgin Islands asked
the court to terminate prospective relief orders under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. The trial court found that the prospective relief orders entered
did not contain the specific findings required by the Act. A hearing was
ordered to decide whether “prospective relief remains necessary to correct
a current and ongoing violation of a federal right at Golden Grove … and,
if so, to ensure that the prospective relief is narrowly tailored to that
violation in the manner required by the PLRA." A federal appeals court
upheld a ruling denying a prisoner at the facility a request to intervene
in the case, finding that the federal government adequately represented
the prisoner's interest in the case. United States v. Territory of VI,
#12-4305, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6683 (3rd Cir.).
A federal judge stated that a proposed wide-ranging
consent decree was "the only way to overcome the years of stagnation
that permitted [the prison] to remain an indelible stain on the community,
and it will ensure that OPP inmates are treated in a manner that does not
offend contemporary notions of human decency." The approved decree
aims at remedying problems that led to years of rapes, suicides, violence,
and other consequences of poor conditions at the Orleans Parish Prison
in Louisiana. The decision notes that prisoners testified to being assaulted
by fellow inmates, sometimes in the plain view of officers, and that there
was evidence that some prisoners with mental health problems had been living
in cells filled with feces. The decree mandates increased staffing and
training, among other things, and continuing oversight of the facility's
operations. The judge found that the decree was narrowly tailored to remedy
unconstitutional conditions. Jones v. Gusman, #12-859 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis
79684 (E.D. La.). Text of consent decree.
Federal appeals court rejects challenges
to consent decree requiring improvements to Puerto Rican prison conditions,
including claim that the court's order violated the requirements of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. Court declines to order termination of consent
decree requiring privatization of inmate health care, pointing to continuing
serious problems. Feliciano v. Rullan, No. 04-1300, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis
16258 (1st Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Far from showing that court ordered privatization
of inmate medical care in Puerto Rico should be ended, correctional official's
own evidence showed that consent decree relief was still necessary to remedy
ongoing problems. Feliciano v. Serra, 300 F.Supp.2d 321 (D. Puerto Rico
2004). [2004 JB Jun]
283:99 U.S.
Supreme Court upholds federal statute requiring an automatic stay of injunctive
orders against correctional facilities when officials ask for termination
or modification of such orders and the trial court fails to hold a hearing
and make findings that there are currently existing violations within a
designated time period. This time limit did not constitute a violation
of separation of powers. Miller v. French, #99-224, 120 S. Ct. 2246 (2000).
287:167 Philadelphia
federal judge approves settlement in city prison overcrowding case pending
for 18 years; further court supervision of city prisons dropped; Prison
Litigation Reform Act provisions allowing defendants to move for modification
or termination of existing consent decrees, and requiring a finding of
current unconstitutional conditions for any prospective relief are cited
in judge's order. Harris v. City of Philadelphia, #82-1847, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12579 (E.D. Pa.).
268:53 Federal
appeals court, joining six other circuits, upholds provision of Prison
Litigation Reform Act allowing states and cities to be granted immediate
termination of consent decrees in prisoner lawsuits. Imprisoned Citizens
Union v. Ridge, #98-1536, 169 F.3d 178 (3rd Cir. 1999).
» Editor's
Note: Six other federal Courts of Appeal have upheld this provision of
the PLRA. Hadix v. Johnson, #96-2463, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,
118 S. Ct. 2368 (1998); Dougan v. Singletary, #93-2008, 129 F.3d 1424 (11th
Cir. 1997); Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse, #97-1261, 129 F.3d 649
(1st Cir. 1997); Benjamin v. Jacobon, #96-7957, 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 1997)
; Gavin v. Branstad, #96-3361, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,
1998 U.S. LEXIS 4330, Plyler v. Moore, #96-6884, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.
1996. Only one three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
has ruled to the contrary, and the Ninth Circuit has granted a rehearing
en banc in the case. Taylor v. United States, #97- 16069 & 97-16071,
143 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998), opinion withdrawn, rehearing en banc granted,
158 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1998).
270:87 State
of Alabama found to have avoided any good faith attempt to comply with
federal overcrowding lawsuit consent decree; while consent decree was properly
dissolved at this point pursuant to provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, attorneys' for plaintiff inmates and for county were entitled
to attorneys' fees for attempting enforcement of decree while it was in
effect. Chairs v. Burgess, 25 F.Supp.2d 1333 (N.D. Ala. 1998).
260:123 Federal
appeals court finds unconstitutional, on separation of powers grounds,
provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act calling for immediate termination
of consent decrees entered without factual or legal findings that relief
granted is "narrowly drawn," goes no further than necessary to
correct a violation of a federal right, and uses the "least intrusive
means necessary"; 9th Circuit appeals court stands alone in rejecting
constitutionality of this provision. Taylor v. U.S., 1998 U.S. App. Lexis
8550 (9th Cir. 1998). » Editor's Note: All other federal appeals
courts to date which have addressed this issue have reached the opposite
conclusion from the one announced by the Ninth Circuit in the case reported
on above. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998) (Sec. 3626(b)(2)
does not violate separation of power principles); Dougan v. Singletary,
129 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir. 1997) (same); Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse,
129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir. 1997) (same); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th
Cir. 1997) (same); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied, 117 S.Ct. 2460 (1997) (same); and Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d
162 (2d Cir. 1997) (Section 3626(b)(2) is constitutional but does not terminate
consent decree; only jurisdiction of federal court terminated).
238:147 Federal
Prison Litigation Reform Act becomes law, makes numerous changes in prison
litigation, including scope of injunctive orders, standards for termination
of injunctive orders, amount of attorneys' fees, standard for prisoner
release orders in overcrowding cases, prisoner payment of filing fees and
court costs, barring inmates who repetitively file frivolous suits from
further filings, no awards for mental/emotional distress in the absence
of physical injury, and revocation of federal prisoner's good time credits
if they file malicious lawsuits or testify falsely, among other highlights.