Ruiz v. Estelle
| Decision Date | 16 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | 81-2380 and 81-2390,Nos. 81-2224,s. 81-2224 |
| Citation | 688 F.2d 266 |
| Parties | David R. RUIZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Mark White, Atty. Gen. of Tex., Douglas M. Becker, Ed Idar, Jr., Kenneth L. Petersen, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Pike Powers, Austin, Tex., Lee C. Clyburn, William R. Pakalka, Jerry E. Smith, Houston, Tex., Keith A. Jones, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants.
Donald W. Jackson, Asst. County Atty., Edward J. Landry, Houston, Tex., for Heard.
William Bennett Turner, San Francisco, Cal., Steven L. Winter, Joel Berger, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Samuel T. Biscoe, Dallas, Tex., for Ruiz, et al.
James Wiginton, Angleton, Tex., Donna Brorby, San Francisco, Cal., for L. D. Hilliard.
David J. W. Vanderhoff, Senior Trial Atty., Dennis J. Dimsey, Atty., W. Bradford Reynolds, Appellate Section, Civil Rights Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the U. S. A.
David Crump, Law School, University of Houston, Susan E. Waite, The Legal Foundation of America, Houston, Tex., for amicus curiae The Legal Foundation of America.
Alvin J. Bronstein, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae ACLU-Nat. Prison Project.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion June 23, 5 Cir., 1982, 679 F.2d 1115)
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN and TATE, Circuit Judges.
After an opinion was rendered in this case, Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982) (), counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees, a class comprising the inmates confined in the various institutions operated by the Texas Department of Corrections ("TDC"), filed a petition for rehearing. It tells us, for the first time, that the parties disposed of one of the issues after it was briefed, argued, and submitted, and before the court issued its opinion. The petition also seeks reconsideration of other issues. We consider these points separately.
The parties resolved the Huntsville Unit Hospital issue several months before we issued our opinion in this case. In accordance with the request made by the inmate class and acquiesced in by the defendants, we vacate Parts 6.6 and 11.5(2) of the panel opinion, 679 F.2d at 1149-50, 1165, which treat that issue.
The plaintiffs assert that the parties have agreed to a TDC fire safety plan that has been tentatively approved by the district court. Nothing contained in our opinion intimates that this agreement, never previously called to our attention, should be set aside, whether or not the fire safety provisions of the prior district court decree are affirmed. Accordingly, without setting aside our prior determination on this issue, see Parts 6.8, 11.5(5), 679 F.2d at 1152-53, 1165, we state expressly that the parties are not precluded from obtaining the district court's approval of a remedial order that grants additional relief. Cf. United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 447 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (plurality opinion) ().
Our ruling that double-celling of inmates in administrative segregation does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, Parts 6.7, 11.5(3), 679 F.2d at 1150-51, 1165, was based only on the record before us. It was not intended to preclude either party from seeking further relief. Accordingly, our opinion is amended so that Part IV(C)(3) of the district court's decree is vacated without prejudice.
We adhere to our holding that the direction to TDC to use good time, parole, and furlough programs was unduly intrusive. We fail to perceive how, under the district court's decree, even as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander S. v. Boyd
...U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.), amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir.1977); Stewart v. Gat......
-
Akins v. Liberty Cnty.
...428 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1152 (5th Cir.), amended in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982)). The Constitution, however, is not concerned with "a de minimis level of imposition." Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 106 (5th Cir. 19......
-
Cobell v. Norton
...968 F.2d 850, 861 (9th Cir.1992). See also Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir.1982), vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982) (noting that "the remedy should begin with what is absolutely necessary. If those measures later prove ineffective, more stringent on......
-
Cooper v. Hopkins
...503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D.Tex.1980), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.), amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). As the litigation proceeded, the parties were able to negotiate a......
-
The Fat Prisoners' Dilemma: Slow Violence, Intersectionality, and a Disability Rights Framework for the Future
...outside of a cell creates a constitutional deprivation); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1151– 52 (5th Cir.), vacated in part as moot , 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Haggy v. Solem, 547 2022] THE FAT PRISONERS’ DILEMMA 817 have at least some time to exercise outside of their ce......
-
The jurisprudence of the PLRA: inmates as "outsiders" and the countermajoritarian difficulty.
...for crimes...."). (53) For instance, Bell appeared to have no significant impact on the decision of the Fifth Circuit in Ruiz v. Estelle, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), which affirmed the trial court's ambitious directives for reforming the Texas prison system. Similarly, writing in 1983, Ja......
-
Managed health care in prisons as cruel and unusual punishment.
...see also Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1146 (5th Cir. 1982), amended in part on other grounds, vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1983); Battle v. Anderson, 594 F.2d 786, 792 (10th Cir. 1979); Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 540 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Welsch v. Likins......