Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION JUSTICE, Senior District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.860 A. Case History.862 1. Ruiz v. Estelle.862 2. The 1992 Final Judgment.863 B. The Prison Litigation Reform Act.864 C. Post-1992 Procedural History .865 II. SUMMARY AND CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES.869 A. The Parties’ Positions .869 B. The Proper Scope of this Decision .:.870 III. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE PLRA.872 A. Retroactivity.872 B. Separation of Powers.872 1. Separation of Powers Challenges to the PLRA.873 2. Congress’s Inability to Reopen an Article III Court’s Final Judgment .874 3. The Consent Decree as a Final Judgment.875 4. The Final Judgment’s Protection of Inmates’ Private Constitutional Rights .876 5. Congress’s Inability to Decide a Discrete Group of Cases.878 6. The PLRA’s Ambiguous Drafting.879 7. The PLRA’s Unambiguous Legislative History.880 8. Conclusion.882 C. Due Process.882 D. Equal Protection.883 E. Conclusion.884 IY. THE FACT-FINDING HEARING.884 A. Procedure for the Truncated Hearing.884 B. Procedure for Evidentiary Objections.884 V.OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.885 VI.OVERVIEW OF PRISONERS’ RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.886 VII. PROVING SYSTEMIC CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.888 A. A Matter of “Logic and Judgment” .888 B. Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Methodology.889 C. Constitutional Violations As Legal Judgments.892 VIII. MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES.892 A. Compendium.892 B. Medical Testimony and Findings of Fact.892 1. Quality of Care Audits-Cancer, Cardiac Disease, and HIV.894 2. Non-physician Health Care.897 3. Inadequate Evaluation and Referral.898 4. Failure to Follow-up.898 5. Staff Indifference.898 6. Poor Treatment of Diabetes.899 7. The Lack of Satisfactory Communication Between Hospitals and Prisons.900 8. Medically Contraindicated Work.901 9. The Lack of Self-Monitoring.901 10.Accreditation.901 C. Psychiatric Testimony and Findings of Fact.902 D. Legal Analysis and Conclusions .906 IX.ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION.907 A. Compendium.907 B. Testimony and Findings of Fact.907 1. The Psychological Effects of Administrative Segregation.907 2. Mentally Ill Inmates in Administrative Segregation.911 3. TDCJ Policies .913 C. Legal Analysis and Conclusions .913 X.INMATES’ SAFETY.915 A. Compendium.915 B. Testimony and Findings of Fact.916 1. Introduction.916 2. Physical Assaults on Inmates.916 3. Sexual Assaults on Inmates.917 4. Plaintiffs’ Experts .919 5. Defendants’ Response.920 6. The Grievance Process.922 7. Safekeeping and Protective Custody. 922 8. Accreditation. 924 9. Classification Staff. 925 10.Deliberate Indifference. 925 C. Legal Analysis and Conclusions . 926 XI. EXCESSIVE FORCE. 929 A. Compendium. 929 B. Testimony and Findings of Fact. 929 1. Introduction. 929 2. An Overview of Expert Methodology. 930 3. TDCJ-ID Policies and Procedures. 932 4. A Culture of Force. 932 5. The Prevalence of Excessive Force . 933 6. The Ambiguity of the Numbers. 934 7. Non-physical Force. 935 8. Monitoring, Supervision, Grievances, and Investigations. 936 C. Legal Analysis and Conclusions . 938 XII. CONCLUSION. 940 I. INTRODUCTION Counsel for the State of Texas, in an opening statement in this matter, declared that “[u]nder the guidance of this court, and out of a sincere desire to improve its prison system, ... Texas has transformed its prison policies and practices over the course of the last 20 years.” There can be no doubt that since David Ruiz and the other named plaintiffs began this civil action in 1972 with allegations of unconstitutional practices and conditions in the Texas Department of Corrections’ (TDC) prisons, the parties have effected remarkable changes within the prison system. In an epic trial in 1978 and 1979, the plaintiffs’ evidence offered a rare glimpse behind the walls that so conveniently shielded free world society from the barbarous living conditions of many of the approximately 25,000 individuals then incarcerated in the TDC prison system. Faced with the staggering magnitude of the constitutional violations found in Texas prisons in 1980, this court regretfully acknowledged that it is impossible for a written opinion to convey the pernicious conditions and the pain and degradation which ordinary inmates suffer within TDC prison walls-the gruesome experiences of youthful first offenders forcibly raped; the cruel and justifiable fears of inmates, wondering when they will be called upon to defend the next violent assault; the sheer misery, the discomfort, the wholesale loss of privacy for prisoners housed with one, two, or three others in a forty-five foot cell or suffocatingly packed together in a crowded dormitory; the physical suffering and wretched psychological stress which must be endured by those sick or injured who cannot obtain adequate medical care; the sense of abject helplessness felt by inmates arbitrarily sent to solitary confinement or administrative segregation without proper opportunity to defend themselves or to argue their causes; the bitter frustration of inmates prevented from petitioning the courts and other government authorities for relief from perceived injustices. Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265, 1390 (S.D.Tex.1980). Truly, much has changed. The Texas prison system, having grown to incarcerate approximately 140,000 inmates in over 100 penal institutions, has instituted a complex web of policies and regulations designed to alleviate many, if not all, of those problems. Today, plaintiffs and defendants alike look back with horror at the way the system used to be. Plaintiffs and defendants alike may also look back with pride at how much the system has changed. Of course, transformation does not, in and of itself, a constitutional institution make. Although a legitimate source of pride, the prison system’s continuing evolution neither proves compliance with the constitution, nor lowers the basic standards of humanity that the constitution demands. To assess the existence of ongoing constitutional violations in the Texas prison system, this court must consider not the system’s reformation over the last two decades, but that reformation’s contemporary product. It must be determined whether the policies, practices, and conditions of the Texas prison system, as they exist today, provide the humanitarian protections afforded inmates by the Constitution of the United States. Inmates, although they do give up many of their constitutional liberties and rights upon incarceration, do not live in a world void of constitutional protections. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reminded us, “[t]here is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country.” Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1126 (5th Cir.1982). Prisons, of course, are designed to punish. Institutions of incarceration are an unfortunately necessary infrastructure of our society. And, this court has sentenced more offenders to such institutions than it cares to remember. However, an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment; an offender should not, and must not, be sentenced to a term of enslavement by gangs, rape and abuse by predatory inmates, or excessive force by prison employees. To allow such “punishment” would run counter to modern penologists’ ambitions of corrective rehabilitation. As this court stated after the original trial in this civil action, such “iniquitous and distressing circumstances are prohibited by the great constitutional principles that no human being, regardless of how disfavored by society, shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or be deprived of the due process of the law within the United States of America.” Ruiz, 503 F.Supp. at 1390. Couched in two motions to terminate its jurisdiction in this civil action, this court has before it, once again, questions of the Texas prison system’s constitutionality. After determining that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act violate the separation of powers doctrine and due process clause of the Constitution of the United States, the court has alternatively found the Texas prison system continues to violate inmates’ constitutional rights. It is determined that TDCJ’s medical and psychiatric care systems, while at times plagued by negligent and inadequate treatment of members of the plaintiff class, are not so deliberately indifferent to inmates’ physical and mental health needs as to be unconstitutional. The extreme deprivations and repressive conditions of confinement of Texas’ administrative segregation units, however, have been found to violate the Constitution of the United States’ prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, both as to the plaintiff class generally and to the subclass of mentally ill inmates housed in such confinement. Furthermore, members of the plaintiff class still live under conditions allowing a substantial risk of physical and sexual abuse from other inmates, as well as malicious and sadistic use of force by correctional officers. Despite its institutional awareness of these conditions, TDCJ has failed to take reasonable measures to protect vulnerable inmates from other, predatory prisoners and overzealous, physically aggressive state employees. These findings do nothing to diminish the respect and approbation deserved by those in TDCJ who work diligently to punish, reform, and rehabilitate society’s offenders. Over the course of this litigation, this court has developed a profound appreciation for the formidable task of handling Texas’ massive incarcerated population. As the plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged, the Texas prison system, from its policy-makers to its correctional officers, employs many conscientious public servants-individuals who recognize that prisons must not only punish wrong-doers but also attempt to improve them. It is hoped that these same public servants, in light of the evidence produced before this court, recognize that similar improvement is required of the prison system itself. A. Case History 1. Ruiz v. Estelle Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of their constitutional rights, David Ruiz and other inmates brought suit in 1972, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Director of TDC. In 1974, Ruiz’s civil action was consolidated with a number of others, and class action status was granted to the plaintiffs, who represented all past, present, and future inmates in the Texas Department of Corrections. The inmate plaintiffs, joined by plaintiff-intervenor the United States, alleged TDC conditions and practices violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Extensive discovery continued through 1977. After several procedural and logistical delays, trial commenced in Houston, Texas, on October 2,1978, with the undersigned judge sitting by designation in the Southern District of Texas. Trial lasted 159 days. By the end of trial, the court had heard the testimony of 349 witnesses and had received approximately 1,565 exhibits into evidence. As this court noted at the time, the trial “lasted longer than any prison case-and perhaps any civil rights case-in the history of American jurisprudence. In marked contrast to prison cases in other states, the defendant prison officials here refused to concede that any aspect of their operations were unconstitutional, and vigorously contested the allegations of the inmate class on every issue.” Ruiz, 503 F.Supp. at 1390. In its 1980 memorandum opinion, this court made separate factual findings and legal analyses of plaintiffs’ claims. Detailed findings of fact were made in the areas of overcrowding, security and supervision, health care (including medical, dental, and psychiatric care, as well as the special needs of some inmates), discipline, access to the courts, and fire and work safety. Based on those factual findings, this court held that the prisons were grossly overcrowded, that sanitation and recreational facilities were wholly inadequate, that health care was inadequate, that hearing procedures for discipline were inadequate, that access to courts was inadequate, and that fire safety and sanitation standards were in violation of state law and the Constitution. On April 20, 1981, this court issued a consent decree granting comprehensive in-junctive relief. See Ruiz, 679 F.2d 1115, Appendix A. The order obligated TDC to reduce, inter alia, the inmate population in each prison unit to alleviate overcrowding, to increase the security guard and support staff, to furnish adequate medical and psychological care, and to bring all living and working environments into compliance with state health and safety standards. Also, a special master was appointed to supervise and monitor the defendants’ ef-fectuation of this court’s orders. Ruiz, 503 F.Supp. at 1389. After a series of motions and appeals by defendants, this first phase of Ruiz case finally culminated with the Fifth Circuit’s affirmation of this court’s determination that TDC imposes cruel and unusual punishment on inmates in its custody as a result of the totality of conditions in its prisons. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed this court’s finding that some of TDC’s practices deny inmates due process of law. The Fifth circuit further affirmed this court’s decision that remedial measures were necessary. The appellate court, however, narrowed the scope of some of the remedies imposed by this court on TDC to bring the system into compliance with the Constitution. Ruiz, 679 F.2d 1115. 2. The 1992 Final Judgment During the rest of the 1980’s, the parties continued to negotiate various remedial measures, at times coming back before this court with stipulations and motions. See Ruiz v. Lynaugh, 811 F.2d 856, 857 (5th Cir.1987). In March 1990, this court ordered the parties to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of all remedial issues. That agreement was submitted to the court in July of 1992. After an evidentiary hearing, this court adopted the parties’ agreement and issued both a memorandum opinion to that effect, and a separate order approving the judgment, on December 11, 1992. This Final Judgment vacated and replaced numerous detailed orders and compliance plans. It resulted in termination of the court’s jurisdiction in nine substantive areas and continuing permanent injunctive orders on eight substantive issues. The remaining substantive areas were staffing, discipline, administrative segregation, use of force, access to courts, crowding, health services, and death row. In that memorandum opinion, this court praised prison system officials for their continued attempts to improve TDCJ-ID: TDCJ-ID has remade itself into a professionally operated agency whose goals are to achieve the highest standards of correctional excellence. Equally important, the measures taken by TDCJ-ID officials to meet then-constitutional obligations have been memorialized and institutionalized in numerous internal rules and regulations that have replaced this court’s orders as the agency’s ‘road map’ to success. The court is satisfied that the defendants not only will maintain and implement these rules and regulations, but also will continue to strive to improve on them and their implementation despite the absence in many areas of detailed court orders. The parties have caused remarkable and palpable changes to occur within TDCJ-ID, and for that the court is grateful. It is the continued viability of this Final Judgment that is at issue before the court today. B. The Prison Litigation Reform Act President Clinton signed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) into law on April 26, 1996, as part of an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810. According to its proponents, the dual purpose of the legislation was to limit federal-court intervention in the operation of correctional facilities and to curb frivolous inmate litigation. To that end, the PLRA’s amendments to 18 U.S.C. § '3626 include several provisions regarding the “termination of prospective relief.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). Two of these provisions are at issue here. The first is the “immediate termination” provision of the PLRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). This provision calls for immediate termination of any prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions, if such relief does not contain a finding that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). The procedure for implementing this “immediate termination” provision is set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e), which provides that the district court shall promptly rule on such motions and calls for an automatic stay of the prospective relief beginning on the thirty-first day after such motion is filed. Such an “immediate termination” motion, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), is subject, however, to the qualification of § 3626(b)(3). That provision states that relief should not be terminated if such relief remains necessary to correct “a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and ... is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3); see Fifth Circuit Order in No. 96-21118, Aug. 6,1997, at 22-24. In addition to this “immediate termination” clause, the “two-year termination” provision of the PLRA is now at issue before this court. That provision authorizes termination of a final judgment (that was entered before the passage of the PLRA) two years after the enactment of the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(l)(iii). The “two-year termination,” or “(b)(1) provision,” is subject to the same caveat as the “immediate termination” provision of (b)(2)-relief should not be terminated if it remains necessary to correct constitutional violations. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). Defendants filed a motion to terminate under the “immediate termination” provision on September 5, 1996. Further, defendants filed a motion to terminate under the “two-year termination” provision on May 5, 1998. Both motions were at issue in the hearing held before this court beginning on January 21,1999. C. Post-1992 Procedural History Although this hearing was held pursuant to the PLRA, the procedural track leading to this decision actually began before that law was enacted. On March 25, 1996, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5), the state defendants filed a Motion to the Vacate Final Judgment, and thereby sought to nullify their four-year old court-adopted settlement agreement with the plaintiff class. The defendants argued that their “compliance with the Final Judgment, the public’s interest and the State of Texas’ desire to exercise autonomy over its institutions, mandate that any remaining vestiges of court involvement-however passive-with the prison system, now be vacated.” Defendants claimed to operate a constitutional prison system and acknowledged that “no practical effect would be felt by the vacating of the Final Judgment....” (Def. Mot. to Vacate Final /., Mar. 25,1996). One month later, on April 26, 1996, the United States Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 18 U.S.C. § 3626. In hopes of assessing the continued necessity, if any, of the 1992 Final Judgment, on May 31, 1996, this court appointed counsel for the plaintiff class and ordered that both parties “shall meet and confer within forty-five days ... and attempt to (1) narrow the issues in dispute, (2) establish a joint discovery plan, (3) discuss what role, if any, the Special Master in this cause could play in the efficient development of a factual record, and (4) propose to the court an agreed-upon schedule for a hearing on the defendants’ motion.” By August 8, 1996, the defendants reported back to this court that initial discovery had begun and that the parties would agree on a hearing date once the need for further discovery was assessed. On September 5, 1996, defendants supplemented their Rule 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the judgment with a motion to terminate under the “immediate termination” provision of the PLRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Defendants asserted that this court’s 1992 Final Judgment must immediately terminate because it did not contain the findings proscribed in the PLRA-that the relief is narrowly drawn, that it extended no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right at issue, and that it was the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Plaintiffs served their response to this supplemental motion to vacate on September 20, 1996. Therein, plaintiffs contended that the PLRA cannot be applied retroactively to invalidate the Final Judgment, that the 1992 Final Judgment does, “in substance and effect,” make the required findings, that a fact-finding hearing would be necessary to resolve the defendants’ motions, that defendants were estopped from invoking the “automatic stay” provisions of the PLRA, and that the PLRA’s invalidation of the 1992 Final Judgment would violate the United States Constitution for a number of reasons. Affirming plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the automatic stay provisions’ constitutionality, on September 24, 1996, the United States filed its Response to Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Vacate Final Judgment, in which the Justice Department acknowledged that a literal reading of the PLRA would render the automatic stay provision unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. 1996 WL 932104 (S.D.Tex.). The United States suggested that its constitutionality may be preserved by reading the automatic stay provision to allow time for a “court’s deliberative processes.” Id. at *19. Although it took no position on whether this court should vacate the Final Judgment, the United States did express “some continued concern over issues of medical and mental health care in the Texas prison system, based on numerous complaints [the federal government] [had] received in the last few years.” Id. at *1. On September 25, 1996, this court addressed the “automatic stay” provision’s constitutionality. It was determined that “the PLRA ‘automatic stay’ provisions violate the Separation of Powers and due process of law.” Pursuant to the PLRA’s mandate that the existence of “ongoing constitutional violations” be considered, this court also ordered discovery to develop a record on the alleged existence of on-going constitutional violations in TDCJ. Further, this court stated that it would “proceed to give due consideration to both of defendants’ motions when the parties are ready for a hearing on them.” Defendants then began what would prove to be an extended campaign to avoid such a hearing. On October 24, 1996, defendants moved for a stay of this court’s September 25, 1996, discovery order pending the resolution of their appeal before the Fifth Circuit. This court denied that motion on November 14,1996. On December 31, 1996, the Fifth Circuit denied defendants’ motion to stay the discovery. The Fifth Circuit also noted the doubtful appealability of such an order. Defendants petitioned the Fifth Circuit on January 24, 1997, for the writ of mandamus ordering this court to stay discovery and to decide their motion to terminate without any further investigation of “current or ongoing” constitutional violations. After hearing oral arguments on June 3, 1997, the Fifth Circuit, in a decision dated August 6, 1997, denied defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus, and determined that this court’s discovery order was unappealable. Some discovery, in the form of document production and site inspections, began in 1996. In light of defendant’s assertion in their recent Motion for Judgment that “[p]laintiffs have had two- and-a-half years to scour the Texas prison system to identify its imperfections,” however, it is important to note that throughout 1997, defendants resisted and delayed plaintiffs’ discovery in this civil action. During January of 1997, defendants held the position that discovery should not be conducted pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision in defendants’ appeal. Defendants informed plaintiffs’ counsel that neither they, nor their experts and staff, would be allowed to enter any prison facility without an order of this court. (Decl. of Donna Brorby in Supp. of Mot. to Compel, Oct. 17, 1997.) During the summer of 1997, defendants resisted discovery in this civil action on the grounds that they were entitled to have their motion for immediate termination of the Final Judgment decided based on the record previously established, without any further discovery at all. (See Def. Obj. to Request to Permit Entry; Def. Obj. to Request for Prod., July 31, 1997.) Even after the Fifth Circuit denied defendants’ appeal and application for the writ of mandamus on August 6, 1997, defendants initially informed plaintiffs that defendants would not produce any more documents or permit inspections without a court order. (Decl. of Donna Brorby in Supp. of Mot. to Compel, Oct. 17,1997, at 7-8.) It was in the context of these on-going discovery disputes that it was determined by this court that: plaintiffs have diligently sought discovery in this matter since the Summer of 1996. Audits of health and treatment conditions in the prison system were arranged in December 1996. Inspections by counsel and experts were scheduled in January 1997. These attempts at discovery, both formal and informal, have been resisted by defendants. As late as July 31, 1997, defendants refused plaintiffs formal requests to produce documents or to permit entry of plaintiffs counsel and experts into the prison system. Defendants object to further discovery in this matter, because they believe the issue can be resolved by review of the documents recently produced by them concerning a number of system-wide statistics. (Order, Oct. 31,1997.) Meanwhile, after this court set the date for a management conference for the fact-finding hearing, defendants moved the court on September 23, 1997, for a “prompt” ruling on their motion to terminate, and again invoked the automatic stay provision of the PLRA. Thus, during the month of October, 1997, defendants were ironically arguing for a “prompt ruling” on their motion while simultaneously resisting the discovery necessary to resolve that motion. This court issued a discovery order on October 21,1997, allowing plaintiffs to conduct security and medical site visits as required by the PLRA. This order required that plaintiffs’ counsel be allowed to inspect twenty units, with forty-five days total access to those units. The order also required separate access to twenty units by medical and psychiatric experts, in addition to review of the medical records for deceased inmates by those experts and access to all five regional medical facilities. On December 8, 1997, a management conference was held in which both parties (and prospective intervenors) presented their preliminary legal and factual positions to the court. The disputed necessity for further discovery was discussed. On January 28, 1998, this court held the automatic stay provision of the PLRA, as amended in 1997, unconstitutional. Also, the defendants’ motion for a prompt ruling was granted and defendants’ motion to stay this civil action was denied. Defendants gave notice of their appeal of these orders on February 23,1998. On May 5, 1998, the second motion currently before this court was filed. Defendants, having filed a motion to terminate pursuant to the “immediate termination” provision of the PLRA on September 5, 1996, then moved to terminate the Final Judgment pursuant to the “two-year” provision (“(b)(1) provision”) of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(l)(A)(iii). Two days later, defendants moved this court to reconsider and vacate its earlier discovery motion. Defendants argued that the security site visits have “taken a tremendous toll of the state’s resources, occupying the time and energy of hundreds of people, and requiring the production or inspection of thousands of pages of miscellaneous documentation on site.” Defendants further complained that the scope of plaintiffs’ discovery was exceeding the scope of the Final Judgment. In June 1998, the legal and factual arguments of the parties began to take shape in the record. Defendants, in their supplement to their motion to terminate, filed June 17, 1998, provided the court with a collection of affidavits and data purportedly showing the constitutionality of the Texas prison system. At the same time, plaintiffs filed a consolidated memorandum opposing the motion to vacate which included a collection of declarations and exhibits purportedly showing the unconstitutionality of various aspects of the Texas prison system. Plaintiffs also outlined their constitution-based challenges to the PLRA itself. On July 21, 1998, in its denial of defendants’ motion to reconsider and vacate its discovery order, this court reasserted its intention to fulfill its mandate under the PLRA to consider whether or not on-going constitutional violations exist in the Texas prison system. This court, faced with defendants’ ironically disingenuous objection to the pace and extent of plaintiffs’ discovery inspections, again admonished defendants for their resistance to discovery: Plaintiffs’ efforts at discovery were blocked by defendants for a significant portion of the nineteen months referred to. It was the unfavorable resolution of defendants’ own appeal which ended their intransigence as to the plaintiffs’ right to conduct discovery. Furthermore, defendants have canceled site inspections and delayed the rescheduling. Defendants have also taken considerable time to produce death records requested by the plaintiffs. Despite these delays, plaintiffs have notified defendants that site inspections should be completed in September, 1998. After examining the declarations of the parties, it is found that the plaintiffs are making a prompt effort to complete discovery as ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and this court. (Order, July 21, 1998, p. 2.) In the same order, this court reasserted that “[n]o order will issue on the motion to terminate relief until a factual inquiry to determine its applicability is completed.” (Id. at 1.) In their objections to that order, defendants again expressed their disapproval of the decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on their motion to terminate, and argued that the issues should be resolved by summary judgment. Defendants supplemented these objections with a number of affidavits rebutting plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the constitutionality of the Texas prison system. The defendants next petitioned the Fifth Circuit on October 28, 1998, for the writ of mandamus compelling this court (1) to rule immediately on its pending motion to terminate on-going prospective relief and (2) to terminate extra-constitutional aspects of the 1992 Final Judgment. On November 4,1998, this court set the fact-finding hearing on defendants motions to terminate for January 21, 1999. Although the Fifth Circuit expressly denied the petition for writ of mandamus, it ordered this court to act within thirty-one days of the evidentiary hearing set for January 21, 1999, and to rule on defendants’ motions not later than March 1, 1999. On November 20, 1998, the Fifth Circuit ordered this court to grant defendant-intervenors’ motion to intervene. Thus, this court arrived at a fact-finding hearing, albeit necessarily truncated, to consider allegations of on-going constitutional violations in the Texas prison system. It proved regrettable that an issue as complex and massive as the constitutionality of various policies and practices of a system incarcerating approximately 140,-000 inmates had to be truncated and compressed into a few weeks. In order to comply with the Fifth Circuit’s March 1, 1999, deadline, this court limited each party to fifty hours of testimony. Testimony began on January 21, 1999, and ended on February 12,1999. II. SUMMARY AND CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES A. The Parties’ Positions The essence of defendants’ position is that the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, requires termination of this court’s involvement with the Texas prison system. As outlined in the joint pre-trial order submitted to this court on January 5, 1999, defendants contend that they are entitled to relief from the Final Judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 8626(b)(1) and (b)(2) for the following reasons: (1) the 1992 Final Judgment does not comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) and (b)(3), in that it does not contain findings of any ongoing or current violation of a Federal right; (2) the 1992 Final Judgment contains extra-constitutional relief; (3) the plaintiffs have not established the existence of current and ongoing violations of a Federal right; and (4) the prospective relief contained in the 1992 Final Judgment is not limited to the end that it extend no further than necessary to correct the violations of a Federal right and is not limited so as to be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation of a Federal right. Defendants further argue that the absence of a finding of a current and ongoing violation of a Federal right in the Final Judgment causes it to be barred by the jurisdictional limits of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Finally, defendants reject plaintiffs’ contentions that the termination provisions of the PLRA are imper-missibly retroactive, that defendants have waived their ability to seek the 1992 Final Judgment’s termination, and that the PLRA violates the Constitution of the United States. The gravamen of plaintiffs’ position is that the presence of ongoing constitutional violations in the Texas prison system requires continued oversight by this court. Plaintiffs begin their contentions with legal objections to the PLRA itself. Plaintiffs argue that the PLRA does not, and may not, apply retroactively to the 1992 Final Judgment. Were it construed to be applicable to that order, plaintiffs maintain, the PLRA would be unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, as a denial of due process, and as a deprivation of equal protection. If the PLRA is constitutional and applicable to this civil action, plaintiffs insist that they are entitled under the PLRA to continuing prospective relief that “remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of [their] Federal right[s], extends no further than necessary to correct the violation[s] of the[ir] Federal right[s] and ... that is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violations.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). More specifically, defendants are further accused by plaintiffs of deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious physical and mental health care needs. Plaintiffs also complain that defendants deprive administratively segregated prisoners of the minimum necessities of life and punishment of inmates without due process. Defendants are also accused by plaintiffs of failing to meet their Eighth Amendment duty to ensure prisoners reasonable safety from other prisoners and to curtail malicious and sadistic uses of force by correctional officers. Under the plaintiffs’ theory, crowding and understaffing prevent defendants from curing these constitutional violations. B. The Proper Scope of this Decision Defendants have consistently argued that the issues before the court in this matter should be limited to those outlined in the 1992 Final Judgment. Defendants point out that, as a result of the 1992 Final Judgment, this court lifted all injunctive relief relating to the following areas: classification, maintenance of facilities, Spanish-English interpreters, provision of necessities, major structural deficiencies, the special master, programs for physically handicapped inmates, programmatic and recreational activities, monitoring by plaintiffs’ counsel, work health and safety, and mentally retarded offenders programs. The 1992 Final Judgment retained injunc-tive relief in the following areas: staffing, access to courts, health services, support services inmates, contact visitation, psychiatric services, discipline, crowding, death row, administrative segregation, internal monitoring and enforcement, and use of force. As defendants acknowledge, these are areas in which plaintiffs could properly offer testimony in the fact-finding hearing. This court wholeheartedly agrees with, and accepts, the Fifth Circuit’s admonition that the district court’s decision should not entail a general overall examination of the prison system, but should simply be focused on those continuing injunctive orders (concerning the ‘eight substantive issues’) contained in the December 1992 judgment. Ruling on the motion is not an occasion to examine other areas of prison conditions or practices, neither the “nine substantive areas” as to which the December 1992 judgment “resulted in complete relief from judgment and termination of the court’s jurisdiction” nor areas not dealt with one way or the other in the December 1992 judgment. (5th Cir. Order, Aug. 6, 1997.) After reviewing the sum total of the evidence presented to the court, it is determined that plaintiffs have in fact limited their presentation of evidence to the areas of injunctive relief remaining after the 1992 Final Judgment. In light of defendants’ contentions, however, the propriety of one area of testimony merits further clarification. Defendants have urged the court to disregard evidence concerning TDCJ’s unit classification committees on the grounds that the 1992 final judgment contains no remaining relief relating to classification. In their Motion for Judgment, defendants state: Plaintiffs have put on numerous inmate witnesses who have complained that their requests to the unit classification committees (UCCs) for transfer or reclassification to safekeeping or protective custody were improperly denied, subjecting them to alleged inmate assaults. Plaintiffs’ experts have also testified that these alleged improper classification decisions may not have occurred but for the loss of 200-300 classification case manager positions in the 1995 budget. (Def. Mot. For J., Feb. 4,1999, at 7.) Defendants are correct to point out that orders regarding the prisoner classification system were vacated with the 1992 Final Judgment. This court was led to believe that the classification system in place at that time would remain in place in some form or another, and made factual findings to that effect: The prisoner classification system developed by the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ-ID”) has become an important and entrenched part of the operation of TDCJ-ID. James A. Collins, Director of the TDCJ-ID, testified that, like security staffing, classification is one of the primary ingredients for operating a prison system successfully. The thrust of his testimony was that TDCJ-ID intends to maintain its current classification system, although that system undoubtedly will evolve over time as conditions change and prison managers improve and redefine it. (1992 Mem. Op.) It was found that TDCJ had, in actuality, greatly improved its classification system, which at the time of the original trial in this case focused exclusively on age, size, and the number of prior incarcerations. By the time of the settlement negotiations in the early 1990’s, the classification system provided prison managers with detailed information on prisoners and established reasonable criteria for grouping prisoners based on their needs, security and custody levels, medical condition, and relevant physical characteristics. In light of those circumstances, it was concluded that “TDCJ-ID is likely to continue to employ this system of classification, or one equally appropriate for the operation of safe and secure prisons.” (1992 Mem. Op.). Due to circumstances beyond prison officials’ control, TDCJ’s system of classification of prisoners has apparently changed dramatically in recent years. The classification system contemplated by the 1992 Final Judgment effectively no longer exists. In 1995, there were 328 unit classification staff, with a ratio of prisoners to unit classification staff of 233 to one. That is, each unit classification officer was responsible for maintaining safe and appropriate placement for 233 inmates. Today, there are approximately 60 such classification staff. Each unit classification officer is responsible for approximately 1,250 inmates’ placement. Pl.Ex. 11. As defendants point out, the simple fact that the structure of th'e classification has changed, even if to the detriment of inmates’ interests, does not reopen those orders and agreements regarding classification that were vacated by the 1992 Final Judgment. Defendants have correctly noted that “classification,” per se, is not an issue properly before the court. Defendants’ further assertion that plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the improper denial of their requests for safekeeping or protective custody should be ignored by this court is, however, incorrect. In making this claim, defendants have mistakenly attempted to pigeon-hole large portions of plaintiffs’ evidence into the category of “classification” when such evidence is actually appropriately viewed as evidence related to “crowding” and “staffing”-areas in which the court has in fact retained injunc-tive relief. The various titles for the viable issues in the 1992 Final Judgment are not rigidly exclusive. It is possible, and highly probable, that much of the testimony in this matter, such as that regarding inmate requests for protection, could fall under several of those headings. Overcrowding and understaffing, in the event such conditions were found, could very easily cause defendants to fail and refuse to consider and act reasonably on information inmates give them about substantial risks of serious harm they or other inmates face. In that event, the constitutionality of that condition would have to be assessed. Furthermore, plaintiffs have not put the classification system, in itself, directly at issue. Rather, the loss of the two to three hundred classification case managers has been offered as a rational explanation for the alleged failure of the prison system to provide reasonable safety to inmates. For these reasons, defendants’ contention that “failure to protect claims are not properly at issue in this hearing” is without merit. III. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE PLRA Plaintiffs first oppose termination of the consent decree with a series of legal contentions aimed at removing the 1992 Final Judgment from the scope of the PLRA. First, they argue that the PLRA does not apply retroactively to consent decrees issued before the statute’s date of passage. The plaintiffs go on to assert that if the PLRA does, in fact, apply retroactively- and thereby applies to the 1992 Final Judgment in this civil action-it violates the separation of powers doctrine, due process, and equal protection under the Constitution. Defendants contest all of plaintiffs’ legal arguments. A, Retroactivity Plaintiffs’ threshold assertion-that the PLRA does not apply to court orders signed before its enactment-is without merit because it is contradicted by the plain language of the statute. The PLRA expressly addresses the orders “issued on or before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ...” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(iii). Plaintiffs cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products as creating a presumption against retroactive legislation. 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). That presumption, however, has no bearing here. In determining whether a statute will be applied retroactively, a “court’s first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483. Congress has done so in the PLRA. Plaintiffs’ argument fails, therefore, as the termination provisions of the PLRA at issue here are expressly retroactive. It is precisely this retroactivity, however, that gives additional substance to plaintiffs’ next legal argument. B. Separation of Powers The crux of plaintiffs’ separation of powers claim concerns the effect of the legislatively-enacted PLRA termination provisions on the judicially-entered 1992 Final Judgment in this civil action. Under the separation of powers principle, final judgments of the judicial branch are protected from legislative interference. Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 227-28, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Congress may neither reopen a court’s final judgment, id. at 227, 115 S.Ct. 1447, nor prescribe the outcome of a decision in a particular civil action without changing the underlying substantive law applicable to the case, U.S. v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 80 U.S. 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871). Because the PLRA could overturn, by “immediate termination,” the 1992 Final Judgment of this court, the statute’s constitutionality is clearly called into question. The final judgment at issue here is. a consent decree that developed as a settlement of plaintiffs’ previously validated claims of unconstitutional practices and conditions in the Texas prison system. See Ruiz, 503 F.Supp. 1265. Consent decrees are a common judicial remedy in prison litigation. See, e.g., Carty v. Far-relly, 957 F.Supp. 727 (D.Virgin Islands 1997); Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich.1996), rev’d, 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir.1998); United States v. Michigan, 989 F.Supp. 853 (W.D.Mich.1996); Benjamin v. Jacobson, 935 F.Supp. 332, 342 (S.D.N.Y.1996), ajfd in part and rev’d in part, 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.1997). Consent decrees are essentially court-adopted settlement agreements. Prison officials and prisoners often negotiate solutions to prisoners’ complaints in order to avoid not only litigation, but also the potential that a court will adjudicate that state prisons are being operated, unconstitutionally. If the presiding judge approves the agreement, he or she executes it, so that it may be enforced as a judicial order. Consent decrees, therefore, offer defendants a means of avoiding litigation without admitting wrongdoing. Just such a settlement process occurred in this civil action. The 1992 Final Judgment targeted by the PLRA represents this court’s adoption of, as a final judgment, the parties’ own negotiations in Ruiz v. Estelle. 1. Separation of Powers Challenges to the PLRA At least six times, federal district courts have determined that the “immediate termination” provision of the PLRA is unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Denike v. Fau-ver, 3 F.Supp.2d 540 (D.N.J.1998); Gavin v. Ray, 1996 WL 622556 (S.D.Iowa 1996), rev’d sub nom. Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.1997); Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mich.1996), rev’d, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998); Inmates of the Suffolk Co. Jail v. Sheriff of Suffolk Co., 952 F.Supp. 869, 882 (D.Mass. 1997) (alternative holding); McClendon v. Albuquerque, 29 F.Supp.2d 1267 (D.N.M. 1996); Taylor v. Arizona, 972 F.Supp. 1239 (D.Ariz.1997), aff'd, 143 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.1998), reh’g granted, opinion withdrawn, 158 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.1998). Thus far, the only circuit court to uphold a district court’s finding that the termination provision of the PLRA is unconstitutional, however, was the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a decision that has since been withdrawn. Taylor v. United States, 143 F.3d 1178 (9th ,Cir. 1998), reh’g granted, opinion withdrawn, 158 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.1998) On somewhat varying theories, the First, Second, Sixth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of the PLRA termination provisions. See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2nd Cir.1997); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.1997); Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.1996), cert, denied, 520 U.S. 1277, 117 S.Ct. 2460, 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997). And yet, perhaps the most recent court to consider the issue, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, adjudged that § 3626(b)(2) of the PLRA “constitutes a violation of separation of power principles.” Denike v. Fauver, 3 F.Supp.2d 540, 548 (D.N.J.1998). While its ramifications for the PLRA are obviously highly contested, the importance of the separation of powers doctrine is not. The separation of powers doctrine is a fundamental tenet of our democratic government. The doctrine is “basic and vital, namely, to preclude a commingling of the ... essentially different powers of government in the same hands.” O’Donoghue v. U.S., 289 U.S. 516, 530, 53 S.Ct. 740, 77 L.Ed. 1356 (1933) (citations omitted). Although it is never explicitly referenced in the Constitution, the axiom that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches must not usurp each other’s power finds a reverential home in the decisions of the Supreme Court. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83,118 S.Ct. 1003,140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 590-91, 69 S.Ct. 1173, 93 L.Ed. 1556 (1949). 2. Congress’s Inability to Reopen an Article III Court’s Final Judgment In light of the collective wisdom of a number of Supreme Court decisions, the PLRA’s constitutional shortcomings are clear. The first, Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., holds that an Article III court’s final judgment may not be reopened by Congress. 514 U.S. 211, 229, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Plaut involved Congress’s attempted reinstatement of certain securities fraud actions that had been dismissed as time-barred under a previous Supreme Court decision. Four years prior to the Plaut decision, in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, the Supreme Court held that litigation under § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and the SEC’s Rule 10b-5 “must be commenced within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years of such violation.” 501 U.S. 350, 364, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). This decision obviously imposed a shorter-than-expected limitations period on many litigants. In 1991, Congress enacted a statute that not only changed the statute of limitations for § 10(b), but also purportedly applied retroactively, so as to reverse the numerous judicial dismissals on the merits that occurred in the wake of Lampf. Plaut, 514 U.S. at 214, 115 S.Ct. 1447. Hence, the legislation attempted to reopen the courts’ final judgments. Id. at 214-215,115 S.Ct. 1447. Citing Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Sir William Blackstone and Abraham Lincoln, id. at 219-26, 115 S.Ct. 1447, the Supreme Court in Plaut noted that “[t]he Framers of our Constitution lived among the ruins of a system of intermingled legislative and judicial powers,” id. at 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447, and felt a “sense of a sharp necessity to separate the legislative from the judicial,” id. at 221, 115 S.Ct. 1447. From their own words, it is abundantly clear that the Framers sought to insulate final judgments from legislative revision. Id. at 240, 115 S.Ct. 1447. To this day, “it remains a basic principle of our constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another.” Loving v. U.S., 517 U.S. 748, 757, 116 S.Ct. 1737, 135 L.Edüd 36 (1996). “Judgments within the powers vested in courts by the Judiciary Article of the Constitution may not lawfully be revised, overturned or refused faith and credit by another Department of Government.” Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Gorp., 333 U.S. 103, 113, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948). “[N]o decision of any court of the United States can, under any circumstances, ... be liable to a revision, or even suspension, by the Legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested.” Haybum’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dali.) 408, 413, 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792). Noting that its previous decisions had “uniformly provided fair warning that such an act exceeds the powers of Congress,” the Supreme Court in Plant declared that “[w]hen retroactive legislation requires its own application in a case already finally adjudicated, it does no more and no less than ‘reverse a determination once made, in a particular case.’ ” 514 U.S. at 225,115 S.Ct. 1447 (citations omitted )(quoting The FedeRalist No. 81, at 545 (Hamilton) (J. Cooke, ed., 1961)). Under the Constitution of the United States, Congress simply has no power to set aside a court’s final judgment. The PLRA, if applied to the 1992 Final Judgment in this civil action, would affect just such an unconstitutional reversal of a judicial final judgment. The two termination provisions of the PLRA would mandate the revision of a final judgment entered by this court four years before the statute was signed into law. Like the Supreme Court, this court “know[s] of no previous instance in which Congress has enacted retroactive legislation requiring an Article III court to set aside a final judgment, and for good reason. The Constitution’s separation of legislative and judicial powers denies it the authority to do so.” Plant, 514 U.S. at 240, 115 S.Ct. 1447. 3. The Consent Decree as a Final Judgment The several circuit courts that have declined to find the PLRA termination provisions unconstitutional have done so not by disputing the separation of powers doctrine, but instead by questioning whether a consent decree entered in prison litigation qualifies as a “final judgment” for the purposes of that doctrine. Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.1997); Radix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.1996), cert, denied, 520 U.S. 1277, 117 S.Ct. 2460, 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997). This court respectfully disagrees with these determinations. See Denike, 3 F.Supp.2d 540. A consent decree has all the finality of a final judgment, and is therefore immune to legislative tampering. The Supreme Court clearly established consent decrees’ status as a final judgment in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 391, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). The Supreme Court held that a consent decree “is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.” , Id. at 378, 112 S.Ct. 748. In a situation not unlike the one before this court today, that decision involved a consent decree entered by a federal court to settle inmates’ claims of constitutional violations. As in the Ruiz litigation, the Rufo district court had previously found constitutional violations in a detention facility. Id. at 372-73, 112 S.Ct. 748. ■ The Supreme Court was considering the legitimacy of proposed modifications to the consent decree. Id. Before establishing the standard for modification of a consent decree, the Court addressed the somewhat nebulous nature of consent decrees, generally: A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respect is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees. Id. at 378,112 S.Ct. 748. Simply stated, in the Supreme Court’s words, “a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires.” Id. at 391, 112 S.Ct. 748. And, as the Fifth Circuit has stated, “[t]he entry of a consent decree is more than a matter of agreement among litigants. It is a judicial act.” LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 845 (5th Cir.1993). Hence, in accordance with the separation of powers doctrine, such a “reopening” in the interest of equity may be effected only by a court, not by Congress. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure expressly allows a court to reopen a final judgment in certain delineated situations and other “extraordinary circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b). That rule, however, far from granting Congress any exemption from the separation of powers doctrine, “merely reflects and confirms the courts’ own inherent and discretionary power.... ” Plant, 514 U.S. at 233, 115 S.Ct. 1447. The PLRA, therefore, represents an unconstitutional intrusion on the role of Article III courts. 4. The Final Judgment’s Protection of Inmates’ Private Constitutional Rights The crux of the discrepancy between courts that have upheld and those that have struck down the termination provisions of the PLRA is the relative “finality” of a consent decree. In the face of Plant’s clear declaration that “[t]he separation of powers violation here, if there is any, consists of depriving judicial judgments of the conclusive effect that they had when they were announced ...,” 514 U.S. at 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, proponents of the termination provisions’ constitutionality have seized on an overly-narrow interpretation of the 1855 decision Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855). Citing Wheeling Bridge, the Plant Court did in fact distinguish the unconstitutional statute before it from “legislation ... that altered the prospective effect of injunctions entered by Article III courts.” 514 U.S. at 232, 115 S.Ct. 1447. In the context of prison litigation consent decrees, Wheeling Bridge is, therefore, sometimes cited for the proposition that Plant’s final judgment analysis is inapplicable to prospective relief, because such relief is not considered a “final judgment.” See, e.g., Radix, 133 F.3d 940. A careful review of the Wheeling Bridge decision, however, reveals that it supports the finality of the 1992 Final Judgment in the Ruiz litigation. In Wheeling Bridge, the Supreme Court was faced with a petition for an injunction to prevent the rebuilding of a low bridge over a navigable river. 59 U.S. at 429. In response to an earlier ease brought by the State of Pennsylvania in which a court granted injunctive relief requiring that the bridge be restructured so as to allow free navigation under it, Congress passed a statute declaring the bridge lawful. Id. When the bridge was destroyed in a storm, a new petition was filed pursuant to the original injunction to stop the bridge’s reconstruction. Id. The Court’s decision to refuse the second injunction was based, in part, on a distinction between money judgments and executory injunctions. Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. at 431-32. A money judgment, said the Court, is unaffected by the subsequent law. Id. “But that part of the decree, directing the abatement of the obstruction, is ex-ecutory, a continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins the defendants against any reconstruction or continuance. Now, whether it is a future existing or continuing obstruction depends upon the question whether or not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in the meantime, since the decree, this right has been modified by the competent authority, so that the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the court cannot be enforced. There is no longer any interference with the enjoyment of the public