Taylor v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1998
• Docket Number: 97-16071,Nos. 97-16069,s. 97-16069
• Citation: 143 F.3d 1178,1998 WL 214578
• Parties: 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3309, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4572 Eddie Willie TAYLOR; Michael F.X. Hogan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Intervenor-Appellant, and State of Arizona; Terry Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1178

143 F.3d 1178

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3309, 98 Daily Journal

D.A.R. 4572

Eddie Willie TAYLOR; Michael F.X. Hogan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Intervenor-Appellant and State of Arizona; Terry Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 97-16069, 97-16071.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 9, 1998.

Decided May 4, 1998.

Withdrawn by 158 F.3d 1049

Darrin J. Delange, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona, for the defendants-appellants.

Randall S. Papetti, Lewis and Roca LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

Robert M. Loeb, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, District of Columbia, for the intervenor-appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-72-00021-RCB, CV-72-00058-RCB.

Before: CANBY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, ^* Judge.

RESTANI, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion to terminate a consent decree affecting prison conditions and finding a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, § 802, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-65 (1996) (codified as 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(2) (West.Supp.1998)) ("PLRA" or "the Act"), unconstitutional. That provision mandates immediate termination of previously granted prospective relief, if the relief was granted in the absence of newly-required findings. Id. Because the relief at issue here resulted from an agreement of the parties, no findings of fact and conclusions of law were issued at the time relief was granted, and no record was made from which such findings or conclusions could be drawn. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND ¹

In 1972, two inmates of the Arizona State Prison System filed class action complaints against defendants. The consolidated amended complaint asserted the defendants had violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by adopting and enforcing unconstitutional disciplinary rules; denying prisoners procedural due process; unlawfully depriving prisoners of good time credits; and subjecting prisoners who were placed in isolation to inadequate diets and degrading living conditions. Before evidentiary hearings were completed, the State of Arizona and individual defendants' predecessors in office entered into a consent decree with plaintiffs. The decree provided for the adoption of new rules of discipline and the restoration of good-time credits. The district court determined under the law that existed at the time that it was inappropriate to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in these circumstances.

The consent decree did not end the dispute between the parties. For more than twenty years no litigation ensued, but on January 6, 1994, defendants filed a motion for modification of the consent decree, contending that changes in the law and factual circumstances warranted modifying the decree. In an order dated February 24, 1994, the district court granted that motion.

On January 18, 1995, two inmates--who are not named parties in this case--filed a motion to vacate the prior order because they were not given notice of the motion to modify the consent decree. In June 1996, they sought the same relief on behalf of "299 inmates."

Defendants did not respond to the inmates' motions, but eventually they filed a motion to terminate the consent decree pursuant to the PLRA. Newly-appointed counsel for the plaintiff class responded to defendants' motion to terminate, arguing that the PLRA was unconstitutional and moving to vacate the February 24, 1994 order because of defendants' failure to give notice. Pursuant to the PLRA the district court granted defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree because plaintiffs conceded they could not provide the findings required for continuation of the decree under the PLRA. The court, however, stayed that order pending a determination of whether the PLRA was constitutional. In its order of March 21, 1997, now on appeal, the district court declared 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(2) unconstitutional. The February 24, 1994 order was vacated but the vacation order was stayed pending resolution of the motion to modify the consent decree.

Defendants and the United States of America, which intervened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) (1994) to defend the constitutionality of the PLRA, timely appealed.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1994), as this is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court refusing to dissolve an injunction. The issue of whether the statutory provision is constitutional is an issue of law subject to de novo review. See Masayesva v. Hale, 118 F.3d 1371, 1377 (9th Cir.1997).

III. THE STATUTE

Section 3626(b)(2) of Title 18 provides (2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

Id.

A "limitation" on termination is set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(3). It reads:

(3) Limitation.--Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.

Id. ² Section 3626(g)(9) provides that "[t]he term "relief" means all relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees but does not include private settlement agreements." Id.

Section 802(b)(1) of the Act makes the provisions of the PLRA applicable to "all prospective relief whether such relief was originally granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the enactment of [the PLRA]."

Section 3626(e)(2) provides for an automatic stay of the termination for thirty days after the filing of the motion to terminate. Presumably this is to allow the court an opportunity to assess the decree according to the new standards. Section (e) was amended to allow postponement of the automatic stay for sixty days for good cause, other than general calendar congestion. See Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123(a)(3)(C), 111 Stat. 2440, 2470 (1997).

The language of the PLRA suffers from some lack of clarity. For example, the word "relief" is defined to include "consent decrees," 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(g)(9), but a consent decree is not "relief," though it provides "relief." ³ Furthermore, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(c)(1), regarding consent decrees under the general heading "settlements," expressly incorporates the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a) ⁴ but not the termination provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b). It is also not entirely clear how 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(1), which provides for termination of prospective relief after two years from the date of its granting or, as to pre-PLRA orders, from the date of enactment of the PLRA, is intended to fit with § 3626(b)(2) regarding immediate termination. For pre-PLRA consent decrees, regardless of age, findings necessary to the continuation of prospective relief would be lacking.

One might argue that one or more of these ambiguities enables us to read the statute in a manner that avoids the difficult constitutional question. That is, the statute might be read to avoid legislative termination of past consent decrees. See, e.g., Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 170. The legislative history, however, indicates otherwise.

There seems little doubt that the supporters of the PLRA intended to end perceived ongoing micro-management of state and local prison systems by the federal courts. Senator Abraham noted that "the legislation I am introducing today will return sanity and State control to our prison systems." 141 Cong. Rec. S14316 (daily ed. Sept. 26, 1995) (statement of Sen. Abraham). Similar thoughts were voiced by others. See Catherine G. Patsos, Note, The Constitutionality and Implications of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 N.Y.L.Sch.L.Rev. 205, 206 n. 16 (1998). Moreover, the House Conference Report states expressly that "[p]rior consent decrees are made terminable upon the motion of either party, and can be continued only if the court finds that the imposed relief is necessary to correct the violation of the federal right." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-378, at 166 (1995). We conclude that the inartful drafting is just that, and the meaning of § 3626(b)(2) is sufficiently clear that the question of its constitutionality is presented squarely.

IV. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PLRA § 3626(b)(2)

The main thrust of constitutional challenges to the PLRA has been based on separation of powers principles. A number of district courts, including the court below, have relied on such principles to invalidate § 3626(b)(2) of the PLRA. To date none of those decisions has been upheld. The circuits which have addressed the issue have found 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(2) constitutional. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.1998) (§ 3626(b)(2) does not violate separation of power principles); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997) (same); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 657 (1st Cir.1997) (same); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997) (same); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371-73 (4th Cir.1996) (same), cert. denied, ---...