Seeking more outdoor exercise, Florida death row inmates filed a class action lawsuit in 1981 against prison officials. A class was certified, and in 1983, the district court approved a consent decree providing for two two-hour exercise sessions per week, weather permitting. Several years later, the court found the prison officials in contempt for violating the decree and entered a detailed remedial order that left prison officials less discretion in determining when inmates could exercise. The prison officials appealed, contending that the remedial order went too far.

While that appeal was pending, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was enacted, which requires a court to terminate prospective relief on defendants' motion under certain conditions. 18 USC 3626. Prison officials filed a motion to terminate the consent decree. The district court denied the motion, finding the termination provision of the PLRA unconstitutional. Prison officials appealed. In a per curiam opinion, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the termination provision of the PLRA was not unconstitutional and vacated the lower court's order. Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir. 1997). A subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, Dougan v. Singletary, 524 U.S. 956 (1998) as was a subsequent motion for rehearing. Dougan v. Singletary, 524 U.S. 971 (1998).

On January 21, 1999, the district court (Judge William T. Hodges) vacated the consent decree and dismissed the case, though several motions for attorneys fees were litigated until the parties settled in May 2000.

Denise Lieberman - 10/23/2005


compress summary