In 2002 the sheriff filed a motion for the order's termination under provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), claiming that the original plaintiffs no longer were held at the jail, the order predated the PLRA, and the consent order no longer satisfied the PLRA's relief requirements. The motion was opposed by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who argued that certain issues which were not addressed in an affidavit filed by the sheriff inferred some noncompliant issues remained in violation of the consent order.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia at Atlanta held that the order's termination was statutorily mandated because the plaintiffs failed to prove any current violations existed, and none had been alleged for over 15 years. See: Rhodes v. Seay, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Ga.), Case No. l:91 cv 02908 ODE (July 2, 2007).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Rhodes v. Seay
|Cite||USDC (N.D. Ga.), Case No. l:91 cv 02908 ODE (2007)|