Madrid
Madrid v. Gomez
Opinion
Opinion
Henderson, J.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the issue whether section 802(a)(f)(4) of the recently enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626 ), applies retrospectively to this case. After carefully considering the parties’ initial and supplemental briefs, their oral arguments, and the record herein, we conclude that it does not for the reasons set forth below.
DISCUSSION
The PLRA imposes a number of new restrictions on actions seeking to redress unconstitutional conditions in prisons. The section presently before the Court, section 802(a)(f)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (f)(4), provides that:
Id. Defendants contend that this section applies retrospectively to this case. If so, this Court must modify that portion of its January 23, 1995 Order of Reference which (1) set the Special Master’s compensation at $125 per hour and (2) required defendants to bear the expense of the Special Mastership. January 23, 1995 Order at 6-7. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that section 802(a)(f)(4) is not applicable to the ease at bar.
To resolve this dispute we turn to the Supreme Court’s decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products,…