Williams v. Brimeyer

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 8, 1997.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1997-08-08

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2004

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We hold that the [PLRA] 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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. One Lot of Personal Property

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1997E

Relies on Jensen v. Clarke · Williams v. Brimeyer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-08-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, C.J., and HANSEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

¶2ORDER

¶3The 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.

¶4 *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.

¶5We further hold that the PLRA, as applied in this manner, is within the power of Congress.

¶6It is so ordered.