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. S 3626(g)(9), but a consent decree is not "relief," though it provides "relief." Further- more, 18 U.S.C.A. S 3626(c)(1), regarding consent decrees under the general heading "settlements," expressly incorpo- rates the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. S 3626(a) but not the ter- mination provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. S 3626(b).

Higginbottom v. Carter, No. 99-8055 (11th Cir. 08/21/2000) "Higginbottom argues that the PLRA's exhaustion requirements do not apply to his excessive-use-of-force claim because the claim did not challenge "prison conditions" as defined in the PLRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2), which was amended as part of the same legislation as § 1997e, provides that the term "civil action with respect to prison conditions" means any civil action arising under federal law "with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison.

Id. at 347 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)) (emphasis added). Thus, relying on its reading of Florence’s substantive logic and certain passages in the opinion’s language, the Third Circuit concluded that Florence controls in cases involving strip and cavity searches of minors.The County urges us to follow the Third Circuit in holding that Florence controls in cases involving juveniles.

We therefore remand the ineffectiveness claim to the district court for consideration on the merits."Section 1983 & Related FilingsCason v. Seckinger, No. 99-11125 (11th Cir. 10/24/2000) "On November 12, 1998, defendants filed a motion to vacate and terminate all remaining consent decrees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there are current and ongoing violations of class members' federal rights, and they also urged the court to grant a motion they had filed in 1995 seeking leave to amend their complaint to add related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

We therefore remand the ineffectiveness claim to the district court for consideration on the merits."Section 1983 & Related FilingsCason v. Seckinger, No. 99-11125 (11th Cir. 10/24/2000) "On November 12, 1998, defendants filed a motion to vacate and terminate all remaining consent decrees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there are current and ongoing violations of class members' federal rights, and they also urged the court to grant a motion they had filed in 1995 seeking leave to amend their complaint to add related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

Congress subsequently enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which, as relevant here, sets a standard for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions. Specifically,18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2) provides that a defendant or intervenor may move to terminate prospective relief under an existing injunction that does not meet that standard; §3626(b)(3) provides that a court may not terminate such relief if it makes certain findings; and §3626(e)(2) dictates that a motion to terminate such relief “shall operate as a stay” of that relief beginning 30 days after the motion is filed and ending when the court rules on the motion. In 1997, petitioner prison officials (hereinafter State) filed a motion to terminate the remedial order under §3626(b).

Reacting to this decision, Congress adopted legislation that required the court to consider a presidential pardon as conclusive evidence of the person's disloyalty to the United States and to dismiss appeals in cases seeking to recover the property of such persons. The Klein Court struck down this law, holding that Congress does not have the power to impose a rule of decision for pending judicial cases, apart from its power to change the underlying applicable law.Applying Klein to 18 U.S.C. sec. 3626(e)(2), the Sixth Circuit focused on the broader remedial provisions of the PLRA and found that the automatic stay did not mandate a rule of decision. Hadix, 144 F.3d at 940.

harges) under Supreme Court precedent.Thomas v. GreinerSecond Circuit remands on issue of state of limitations under AEDPA as petition was filed within one year of enactment of the new lawThomas v. DuBoisFirst Circuit in denying Petitioner's claim on jury instruction relating to non-capital murder holds that the state supreme court's finding that jury instruction was erroneous but not prejudicial was correct.Brown v. LensingFifth Circuit holds that despite authorizing a successive habeas petition raising Cage v. Louisiana claims the district court may still dismiss petition for being an abuse of the writPrisoner's Rights/Governmental Misconduct CasesMastroianni v. Bowers Eleventh Circuit on petition for rehearing revisits the issue of absolute and qualified immunity relating to law enforcement officials, and finding that defendants are entitled to either one or the other remands to the district court for the entry of the appropriate orders.Nichols v. Hopper Eleventh Circuit holds that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) does not abrogate the separation of powers doctrine because Congress has not prescribed rule of decision and that that the PLRA does not strip courts of their power to decide constitutional challenges to prison conditions.982271P.pdf Herlein v. Higgins etc. Eighth Circuit holds prison's ban on audio tapes with explicit lyrics is reasonably related to legitimate penological objective of maintaining security.Amati, et al v. City of WoodstockSeventh Circuit upholds jury's finding that the defendants were not liable for the putative violation of federal wiretap laws.Morley v. Walker Ninth Circuit holds that dismissal for immunity (absolute or qualified) not appropriate under rule 12(b) in this suit for false arrest.Caravalho v. PughTenth Circuit denies IFP status after reaching merits holding that Petitioner had no legitimate, non frivolious claims under the PLRA.Grune v. RodriguezSecond Circuit holds a dismissal under Rule 12(f) is appropriate where a challenge is launched against a paro