Williams v. Brimeyer

Eighth Circuit

Williams v. Brimeyer

122 F.3d 1093, 1997 WL 561431

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 8, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2469NI

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 122 F.3d 1093 (Williams v. Brimeyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Brimeyer, 122 F.3d 1093, 1997 WL 561431 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The motion of appellants for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses is granted, and we award $4,971 in fees and $308.41 in expenses. The Clerk of this Court is directed to request the Clerk of the District Court to insert this award in the mandate.

[1094]*1094We hold that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3), applies to all hours worked in this case after the date of the passage of the Act. This is not a “retroactive” application of the new law. The situation in Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191, 1202-03 (8th Cir.1996), was different. There, all of the hours involved had already been expended. Indeed, the order of the District Court that we were reviewing in Jensen was entered before the enactment of the PLRA.

We further hold that the PLRA, as applied in this manner, is within the power of Congress.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The motion of appellants for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses is granted, and we award $4,971 in fees and $308.41 in expenses. The Clerk of this Court is directed to request the Clerk of the District Court to insert this award in the mandate.

[1094]*1094We hold that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3), applies to all hours worked in this case after the date of the passage of the Act. This is not a “retroactive” application of the new law. The situation in Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191, 1202-03 (8th Cir.1996), was different. There, all of the hours involved had already been expended. Indeed, the order of the District Court that we were reviewing in Jensen was entered before the enactment of the PLRA.

We further hold that the PLRA, as applied in this manner, is within the power of Congress.

It is so ordered.

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5249, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7389 Alejandro Madrid, Carlos Lutz, Ronnie Dewberry, Steven Villa, Bruce Vorse, and Moses Johnson v. James Gomez, Steven Cambra, Susan Steinberg, M.D., Robert Ayers, Alejandro Madrid, Carlos Lutz, Ronnie Dewberry, Steven Villa, Bruce Vorse, Moses Johnson, and Salvador Garcia, Intervenor-Plaintiff v. James Gomez, Steven Cambra, Susan Steinberg, M.D., Robert Ayers, and T.K. Boyll, Sgt., Mark Bray, Correctional Officer, John Hagar, Special Master

150 F.3d 1030 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Madrid v. Gomez

150 F.3d 1030 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Donovan Blissett v. Sgt. Casey, Sgt. Greene, Timothy Mulhall, and A. Connors, R.N. Medical Dept.

147 F.3d 218 (Second Circuit, 1998)

Harold D. Williams v. Larry Brimeyer, Sued as Larry Brimyer John Sissel and Erma Heiken, Sued as Irma Heiken

122 F.3d 1093 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F.3d 1093, 1997 WL 561431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-brimeyer-ca8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack