* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 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 judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

-2-

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

This appeal was originally taken from a district court order, dated

November 15, 1995, which dismissed all but one issue in the case and dissolved

certain injunctions in this long-standing prison conditions 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(Table), 1996 WL 145675 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 1996)(unpublished order and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. Id. at **2. This case returns to us

by mandate from the Supreme Court. The Court’s order vacated our order and

judgment and remanded the case to us “for further consideration in light of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996.” Fields v. Battle, 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 reaffirm our order and

judgment, dated March 29, 1996. Therefore, the district 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. In light of further proceedings in

the district court following our March 29, 1996 order, it is clear that the court

complied with our order to reassign the case to a different district court judge. 

We reaffirm that order on remand. 

Initially on remand, the district court should consider 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 moved 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 challenges to this legislation. If

it determines that the PLRA is applicable and constitutional, 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 prospective relief in a civil action with

respect to prison conditions.” 

Plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion urging this court, in part, to

reaffirm our previous stay pending appeal of the district court’s order and our
-4-

reassignment of the case to a different district court judge. Plaintiff-intervenor

had responded to the motion. Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to

respond. In light of this opinion, plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions are denied

as moot. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM