Opinion ID: 6935443
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standard for Compliance

Text: Defendants argue that even if the consent decree covers the use of the 37mm gun, the district court applied the wrong standard in judging compliance. Without citing any law, defendants argue that compliance is to be judged under the “deliberate indifference” standard of the Eighth Amendment. We rejected this argument in Gates v. Rowland, and we reject it again here. Section 1.21 of the Consent Decree states, “The parties agree that in entering into this Consent Decree they waive specific findings of fact and conclusions of law and any determination whether the remedies provided are legally required.” And section 1.25 states, “The parties agree that it is not the intent of this Consent Decree to prescribe the minimum standards required by the United States Constitution.” On the basis of these provisions, we concluded in Gates v. Rowland, ‘Where the parties negotiated use of a constitutional standard, they specified so in the language of the consent decree. Otherwise, the consent decree is not limited to constitutional standards.” 39 F.3d at 1444. Section V.F.l of the Consent Decree provides the governing standard in this case, that of appropriate psychiatric treatment as medically indicated. This is a sufficiently specific standard with which to judge defendants’ compliance.