Charles B. Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, et al., v. Richard A. French, et al. (530 U.S. 327)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 19, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 530 U.S. 327 · 120 S. Ct. 2246
- Decided
- June 19, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) establishes standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions. §§801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77. If prospective relief under an existing injunction does not satisfy these standards, a defendant or intervenor is entitled to “immediate termination” of that relief. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. IV). And under the PLRA’s “automatic stay” provision, a motion to terminate prospective relief “shall operate as a stay” of that relief during the period beginning 30 days after the filing of the motion (extendable to up to 90 days for “good cause”) and ending when the court rules on the motion. §§ 3626(e)(2), (3). The superintendent of Indiana’s Pendleton Correctional Facility, which is currently operating under an ongoing injunction to remedy violations of the Eighth Amendment regarding conditions of confinement, filed a motion to terminate prospective relief under the PLRA. Respondent prisoners moved to enjoin the operation of the automatic stay provision of § 3626(e)(2), arguing that it is unconstitutional. The District Court enjoined the stay, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. We must decide whether a district court may enjoin the operation of the PLRA’s automatic stay provision and,…
Excerpt of a 39,960-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.