* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court (continued...) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 11/7/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BOBBIE BATTLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. LARRY FIELDS, Director; DAN REYNOLDS, Warden of Oklahoma State Penitentiary; CALVINO S. MUSE, Chairman of the Board of Corrections; and HUGH REED; WILLIAMS EVANS; PHIL DESSAUER; JOE R. MANNING, JR.; GREGORY H. HALL; and DANIEL BINTZ; ALL MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, Oklahoma Board of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees,

______________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Intervenor. Nos. 95-7164 & 96-7013 (D.C. No. CV-72-95) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** (...continued)

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

This appeal was originally taken from a district co urt order, dated November 15, 1995, which dismissed all but one issu e in the case and dissolved certain injunctions in this long-standing prison co nditions litigation. Our disposition of the appeal, Battle v. Fields , No. 95-7164, 96-7013, 81 F.3d 172 (Table), 1996 WL 145675 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 1996)(u npublished order and judgment), vacated the district court’s order, remanded the case for a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the underlying motions, and directed that the case be transferred to a different district court judge. I d. at **2. This case returns to us by mandate from the Supreme Court. The Court’s ord er vacated our order and judgment and remanded the case to us “for further c onsideration in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996.” Fields v. B attle , 65 U.S.L.W. 3220, 65 U.S.L.W. 3255, 1996 WL 375974, at *1 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996)(No. 95-2090). We hereby readopt our previous conclusions, and rea ffirm our order and judgment, dated March 29, 1996. Therefore, the dis trict court’s order of-3-

November 15, 1995, is vacated, and we again remand the case to the district court for a prompt hearing on the underlying motions. Inlight of further proceedings in the district court following our March 29, 1996 ord er, it is clear that the court complied with our order to reassign the case to a d ifferent district court judge. We reaffirm that order on remand. Initially on remand, the district court should cons ider the newly enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (PLRA). The PLRA purports to establish a new standard by which prison reform decrees are to be judged. To the extent that defendants have move d to modify or terminate the previous injunctions in this case pursuant to 18 U. S.C. § 3626(b)(2), and to the extent that plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality or other applicability of the PLRA, the district court should consider such c hallenges to this legislation. If it determines that the PLRA is applicable and const itutional, we direct the district court to the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(1) that the court “shall promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate prospecti ve relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions.” Plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion urging th is court, in part, to reaffirm our previous stay pending appeal of the di strict court’s order and our-4-

reassignment of the case to a different district co urt judge. Plaintiff-intervenor had responded to the motion. Defendants filed a mo tion for extension of time to respond. In light of this opinion, plaintiffs’ anddefendants’ motions are denied
as moot. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM