Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicable Legal Standard Under the PLRA

Text: 52 Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that, even if § 3626 limited the district court's ability to extend jurisdiction, the court applied the wrong legal standard. Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred by requiring them to prove a current and ongoing violation of their constitutional rights. The quoted standard appears in § 3626(b)(3), which pertains to termination proceedings and which states in part: Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right.... (Emphasis added.) We are not persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument. 53 The quoted standard for termination does not differ materially from the standard to be applied in deciding whether prospective relief is proper. To prevail on their motion to extend jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must establish that the prospective relief extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). This standard, too, requires the existence of a constitutional violation in need of correction. The text of § 3626(a)(1)(A) suggests that, in the absence of a current and ongoing violation, there is no occasion to fashion prospective relief to cure the violation. In other words, if a violation no longer exists, the statute does not permit the court to order prospective relief. As we have declared: 54 [T]he general standard for granting prospective relief differs little from the standard set forth in § 3626(b)(2) for terminating prospective relief, or from the standard set forth in § 3626(b)(3) for preserving relief to correct a current and ongoing violation. The limits on federal court jurisdiction are essentially the same — no more than necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violation. 55 Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1006. 56 To summarize, the district court properly applied the PLRA's prospective-relief provisions to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Judgment expired by its own terms unless Plaintiffs proved that the Prison's mental health and dental services violated the Eighth Amendment, an issue to which we now turn. 3