Summary
concluding that an inmate’s due process claim was meritorious when he was "denied access to a videotape of the riot" and noting that the video was "the basis for all the statements and reports by prison officers" relied upon by the hearing officer
Summary of this case from Lennear v. WilsonOpinion
D.C. No. CV 80-841-JAR. Argued and Submitted May 5, 2000. Submission Vacated May 9, 2000
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Resubmitted Aug. 22, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the of Oregon, James A. Redden, District Judge, Presiding.
Before LAY, TASHIMA, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
Plaintiffs appeal the district court's judgment terminating the Modified Final Order of June 1990, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b), in plaintiffs' case regarding prison conditions in Multnomah County, Oregon. Plaintiffs contend that § 3626(b), which is the codification, in part, of the PLRA, is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers principles. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Whether a statute is constitutional is an issue of law subject to de novo review. See Masayesva v. Hale, 118 F.3d 1371, 1377 (9th Cir.1997). In Gilmore v. California, No. 98-15198, 2000 WL 1070235 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2000), we held that § 3626(b) was constitutional in the face of separation of powers, due process, and equal protection challenges. See slip op. at 9473, 9489-90. This case is no different; consequently, Gilmore controls.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
Although there are two exceptions to the termination provision of § 3626(b), plaintiffs have not raised the applicability of either exception on appeal, or the district court's refusal to reopen the case, presumably to make findings under § 3626(b)(3).