Buddy Cason v. Jim Seckinger , 231 F.3d 777 ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  [PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ______________________                   ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    OCT 24, 2000
    No. 99-11125                      THOMAS K. KAHN
    _____________________                       CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 84-00313-5-CWH
    BUDDY CASON, IKKI CONTRERAS, et al.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees-
    Cross-Appellants,
    DAVID TONY NEISLER, GERALD WENDELL SPIVEY, et al.,
    Plaintiff-Appellees,
    versus
    JIM SECKINGER, THOMAS JONES, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellants-
    Cross-Appellees.
    ____________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ____________________
    (October 24, 2000)
    Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK*, District Judge.
    *
    Honorable Louis H. Pollak, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of
    Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    CARNES, Circuit Judge:
    This appeal stems from a lawsuit that was filed sixteen years ago on behalf
    of a class consisting of all male and female inmates (“plaintiffs”) presently or in
    the future housed by the Georgia Department of Corrections at the Middle Georgia
    Correctional Complex. The lawsuit was brought against the Georgia Department
    of Corrections and certain officials (“defendants”), and it sought injunctive relief to
    remedy numerous alleged Constitutional violations. The parties differences were
    resolved by entry of a series of consent decrees between May 10, 1990 and March
    29, 1996.
    On November 12, 1998, defendants filed a motion to vacate and terminate
    all remaining consent decrees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
    (“PLRA”), 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    . In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs requested an
    evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there are current and ongoing
    violations of class members’ federal rights, and they also urged the court to grant a
    motion they had filed in 1995 seeking leave to amend their complaint to add
    related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 
    42 U.S.C. §12101
    , et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 
    29 U.S.C. § 701
     et seq. The district
    court granted the defendants’ motion to terminate only insofar as it pertained to the
    enforcement of the consent decrees within the present suit, but denied their motion
    2
    to vacate the “substance” of the underlying decrees.1 The district court also denied
    the plaintiffs’ request for an evidentiary hearing as well as their motion to amend
    their complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate that portion of the
    district court’s order pertaining to termination of the consent decrees and remand
    with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing in accordance with the
    requirements of the PLRA. We affirm that portion of the district court’s order
    denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
    I. BACKGROUND
    The underlying civil action seeking injunctive relief from allegedly
    unconstitutional prison conditions that existed in the Middle Georgia Correctional
    Complex was originally filed in 1984.2 A class was certified consisting of all male
    1
    All of the orders in this case were entered by a magistrate judge. Because the parties
    consented to have the magistrate judge act as the district court pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c),
    we will refer to the magistrate judge’s actions as those of the district court.
    2
    The lawsuit claimed that prison conditions were unconstitutional because, it was
    alleged, there was: (1) pervasive sexual abuse of female inmates by staff; (2) pervasive sexual
    harassment of female inmates by staff; (3) an inadequate classification system; (4) use of
    excessive force, physical violence, and verbal abuse; (5) the illegal use of stripping and restraints
    on mentally ill inmates; (6) violations of basic privacy rights and illegal stripping; (7)
    enforcement of existing orders; (8) inadequate staffing; (9) life-threatening structural and
    physical plant conditions; (10) deliberately indifferent medical, dental, and mental health care;
    (11) deficient food and food services; (12) inadequate access to the courts; (13) unlawful
    visitation, mail, and telephone practices; (14) inadequate fire safety; (15) inadequate
    occupational health and safety; (16) insufficient vocational and educational programs; (17) lack
    of exercise and recreation, and unjustified idleness; (18) lack of meaningful regulations on
    personal property; (19) abusive protective custody procedures; (20) unlawful racial and religious
    discrimination; (21) inadequate disciplinary and grievance procedures policies; (22)
    3
    and female inmates presently or in the future housed in the Middle Georgia
    Correctional Complex. The case was eventually resolved by the entry of a series of
    consent decrees designed to remedy the alleged institutional deficiencies. Of
    primary importance to the issues on appeal are fourteen consent decrees that were
    entered beginning in 1990 and ending in 1996. Of those fourteen orders, three
    contained provisions for automatic termination, and for that reason are not at issue
    in the present appeal.3 The remaining consent decrees did not contain any
    provision for automatic termination.4
    In 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    . The PLRA altered the landscape of prison reform litigation in two
    overcrowding; (23) the adverse psychological effects of detention; and (24) inadequate mental
    health therapy and counseling.
    3
    The consent orders containing automatic termination provisions included the December
    12, 1995 order dealing with mental health, the January 22, 1996 order regarding medical care,
    and the March 8, 1996 order regarding the physical plant and staffing.
    4
    The remaining consent decrees include orders pertaining to discipline and grievances
    (entered May 10, 1990); safety/sanitation, food, use of force, classification, visitation, mail and
    postage, and receipt of funds (entered August 29, 1990); Jane Doe victims/witnesses of sexual
    abuse (entered March 11, 1992); provision of counseling to Jane Doe victims (entered March 15,
    1993); physical restraints, seclusion, and stripping (entered February 1, 1994); investigation of
    sexual contact, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse (entered November 22, 1994); permanent
    population cap at Metro State Prison and psychiatric time to be provided at that prison (entered
    March 10, 1995); training of employees and female inmates about sexual abuse, sexual contact,
    and sexual harassment (entered June 23, 1995); psychiatric hours at Metro State prison (entered
    October 3, 1995); and degree requirements for mental health counselors (entered March 29,
    1996). There was also an order for permanent injunctive relief entered March 7, 1994,
    pertaining to sexual contact, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse.
    4
    primary respects. First, it prescribed limits on the scope of prospective relief that a
    court has the authority to enter, mandating that prospective relief will not be
    entered “unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no
    further than necessary . . . and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
    violation of the Federal right.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    (a)(1).
    Second, the PLRA limits a court’s authority to continue to enforce
    previously entered prospective relief in prison litigation reform cases. Section
    3626(b)(1)(A) establishes specified time frames under which prospective relief is
    terminable upon motion of a party. Section 3626(b)(2) sets forth an additional
    ground for termination, providing that a defendant shall be entitled to immediate
    termination of any prospective relief that was entered without the required findings
    that “the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
    violation . . .and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation ....”
    
    Id.
     Both subsections (b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) are limited by § 3626(b)(3), which
    provides that prospective relief shall not terminate if the court determines that the
    relief remains necessary to “correct a current and ongoing violation of [federal
    rights], extends no further than necessary to correct the violation ... and that the
    prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the
    violation.” Id. § 3636(b)(3).
    5
    In 1998, the defendants moved pursuant to § 3626(b) of the PLRA for an
    order terminating and vacating all consent decrees that did not already contain
    provisions for automatic termination. The district court granted the motion in part,
    concluding that there was no “current and ongoing” constitutional violations
    sufficient to justify the continuation of the decrees under § 3626(b)(3). In
    reaching that conclusion, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for an
    evidentiary hearing. The court determined no evidentiary hearing was required on
    the issue of whether there were current and ongoing violations because the
    plaintiffs had not requested any additional injunctive relief in the two years
    preceding the defendants’ motion, nor had they alleged any non-compliance with
    the existing decrees during that two-year period. According to the court, those two
    factors by themselves established that no current and ongoing violations existed,
    and for that reason no evidentiary hearing was necessary.
    6
    Acting pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    (b)(1)(A)(iii),5 the district court granted
    the defendants’ motion to terminate the consent decrees insofar as the motion
    called for the termination of the underlying lawsuit. Nonetheless, expressing its
    wish not “to destroy what it considers to be positive steps taken by the Department
    in ensuring that its charges are properly looked after in accordance with
    Constitutional requirements,” the court denied the defendants’ motion insofar as it
    requested that the court vacate the substantive provisions of the consent decrees.
    The court was motivated to leave the substantive provisions alone by its desire to
    allow courts in future cases involving these same defendants to be able to consider
    the substance of the prior consent decrees. Perhaps recognizing the problematic
    nature of what it was doing, the court attempted to explain that, “[t]he purpose of
    this order is simply to end this proceeding which has been pending in various
    forms since 1984, nearly fifteen years, keeping intact the substantive provisions of
    all orders and injunctions which have not expired by their own terms.” (emphasis
    5
    Section (b)(1)(A) provides:
    (1) Termination of prospective relief. - (A) In any civil action with respect to
    prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be
    terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener -
    (i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective
    relief;
    (ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying termination
    of prospective relief under this paragraph; or
    (iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the
    Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after such date of enactment.
    7
    in original). The court emphasized that it did not intend to permit the continued
    enforcement of the consent decrees, and to that end vacated and terminated “all
    provisions in the various orders/injunctions entered herein dealing with
    enforcement by way of contempt or otherwise....” (emphasis in original).
    The district court also denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to
    add claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Counsel for plaintiffs
    originally filed the motion in 1995, more than ten years after the lawsuit was
    initiated. The court delayed ruling on the motion until after the Supreme Court
    ruled on the application of the ADA to state prison facilities. See generally
    Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 
    524 U.S. 206
    , 
    118 S. Ct. 1952
    (1998). The district court subsequently denied the motion to amend on the grounds
    that adding a new sub-class to the litigation at such a late stage would only serve to
    prolong the already protracted litigation. The court observed that plaintiffs could
    present any ADA-related claims in a new lawsuit, and that requiring them to do so
    would in no way adversely impact their ability to prosecute such a claim.
    The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to terminate the consent
    decrees in their entirety, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of their request
    for an evidentiary hearing and the denial of their motion to amend.
    II. DISCUSSION
    8
    The provision of the PLRA pursuant to which the district court determined
    the decrees to be terminable mandates that, upon motion of a party, prospective
    relief that was ordered prior to the date of the PLRA’s enactment shall be
    terminable two years after the effective date of the enactment, unless certain
    specific findings are made. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    (b)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(3). Here,
    there is no dispute that the relief embodied in the consent decrees was ordered prior
    to the effective date of the PLRA’s enactment and that the defendants’ motion was
    filed more than two years after that date. Thus, the relief is terminable unless the
    limiting provisions of 3626(b)(3) prohibit termination. Before we can determine
    whether the issues involving the extent of the district court’s termination of the
    consent decrees are presented, we must decide if termination was prohibited under
    3626(b)(3) (“Prospective relief shall not terminate if ....”). We turn to that issue
    now, and to the plaintiffs’ contention that they were wrongly denied an evidentiary
    hearing on it.
    A. DENIAL OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
    We review the district court’s denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing
    for an abuse of discretion. See Loyd v. Alabama Dep’t of Corrections, 
    176 F.3d 1336
    , 1339 (11th Cir. 1999).
    9
    1. The Requirement of an Evidentiary Hearing
    Section 3626(b)(3) provides:
    Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written
    findings based on the record that prospective 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 that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least
    intrusive means to correct the violation.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    (b)(3).
    The defendants argue that an evidentiary hearing is not required under §
    3626(b)(3) where the plaintiffs fail to allege any specific, continuing institution-
    wide violations of a federal right. Here, for more than two years there had been no
    formal allegations that the defendants had violated any constitutional rights of the
    plaintiffs. That alone, the district court concluded, ruled out any “current and
    ongoing” violations within the meaning of the PLRA and made an evidentiary
    hearing unnecessary. The defendants, of course, agree.
    In support of this position, the defendants cite Berwanger v. Cottey, 
    178 F.3d 834
     (7th Cir. 1999). In Berwanger, the district court had appointed a monitor
    to oversee compliance with the consent decrees. See 
    id. at 840
    . The Seventh
    Circuit suggested that if there were current and ongoing violations, the court-
    appointed monitor likely would have been aware of it. 
    Id.
     The court suggested
    further that if the information in the monitor’s possession, together with any
    10
    documents submitted by the parties, was not sufficient to create a disputed issue of
    fact as to the existence of a violation, then the parties may not be entitled to
    introduce more evidence on the issue. 
    Id.
     (“Only if there are disputed issues of
    material fact must the court hold a new hearing and receive testimony.” ).
    There are two problems with defendants’ reliance on Berwanger. First, it is
    not at all clear that the factual and procedural circumstances in that case match
    those in this case. It is unclear that the plaintiffs in Berwanger alleged that specific
    violations of federal rights existed at the time of the termination decision, as the
    plaintiffs in this case did. In their response to the defendants’ motion to vacate,
    these plaintiffs alleged several specific violations of the federal rights of the class
    members.6 Also, the plaintiffs assert, without contradiction by the defendants, that
    at a status conference held shortly before the termination decision they offered the
    district court a series of class-member affidavits that, they contend, would have
    demonstrated the existence of current and ongoing violations, but the district court
    refused to accept them.
    Another problem with defendants’ reliance upon the Seventh Circuit’s
    Berwanger decision is this Court’s own decision in Loyd v. Alabama Dep’t of
    6
    The alleged violations included sexual harassment of female inmates by prison guards
    and visitors, sexual assault of a female inmate by a prison guard, sexual assault by a fellow
    inmate, and institutional reluctance to investigate these claims or to provide therapy to the
    victims, as required under the consent decrees.
    11
    Corrections, 
    176 F.3d 1336
     (11th Cir. 1999). In that decision, we held that it was
    an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to grant an evidentiary hearing
    on the issue of whether the consent decrees satisfied the requirements of §
    3626(b)(3), including whether there was a current and ongoing violation. See id. at
    1342. In contrast to what the Seventh Circuit did in Berwanger, in Loyd we did
    not require plaintiffs who are seeking an evidentiary hearing to first demonstrate
    the existence of a material question of fact. Instead, we seemed to suggest that a
    hearing would be required in all such cases, stating “[i]t would read all meaning
    out of [§ 3626(b)(3)] to force the party opposing termination to show that the
    consent decree meets the requirements of § 3626(b)(3) and then not provide that
    party with the opportunity to present evidence on that point.” Id.
    There was in Loyd, as there had been in Berwanger, a court-appointed
    monitor who had filed reports (up until two months prior to the motion to vacate
    in Loyd), and those reports apparently did not indicate the existence of any current
    and ongoing federal law violations. Id. Despite the existence of the monitor’s
    written reports, we held that an evidentiary hearing was required, stating, “[t]he
    party opposing termination must be given the opportunity to challenge or
    supplement the findings of the monitor and to present evidence concerning the
    12
    scope of the challenged relief and whether there are current and ongoing violations
    of federal rights in the prison.” Id.
    In the present case, the plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to prove
    that there are “current and ongoing” violations of class members’ federal rights.
    Therefore, Loyd compels us to hold that it was an abuse of discretion for the
    district court to refuse to grant plaintiffs the evidentiary hearing they requested on
    that issue. It necessarily follows that the district court’s termination (or partial
    termination) of the consent decrees was premature at best. Accordingly, we will
    vacate that portion of the district court’s order terminating the decrees and remand
    the case with instructions that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on the §
    3626(b)(3) issues.
    In conducting the evidentiary hearing the district court will be called upon to
    interpret and apply the “current and ongoing” violation component of §
    3626(b)(3). Because there is substantial disagreement between the parties about
    the meaning of that component, and because the district court appears to have
    misapprehended the nature of the § 3626(b)(3) inquiries, we write further in order
    to provide the district court and the parties with specific guidance on those
    subjects.
    13
    2. The Scope of the Required Evidentiary Hearing
    If a party has properly moved for termination of prospective relief under
    either § 3626(b)(1)(A) or § 3626(b)(2), the court must determine whether such
    relief should be continued under § 3626(b)(3). That subsection provides that
    prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings on the
    record that: (1) the prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and
    ongoing violation of a federal right, (2) the relief extends no further than necessary
    to correct the violation, (3) the relief is narrowly drawn, and (4) the relief is the
    least intrusive means to correct the violation. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    (b)(3).
    a. The Meaning of “Current and Ongoing”
    The plaintiffs contend that a “current and ongoing” violation of federal
    rights, as that term is used in § 3626(b)(3), includes more than just a currently
    existing violation. They ask us to adopt a standard of “current and ongoing” that is
    broad enough to include the persistence of practices that have led to violations of
    federal law in the past, even though no such violations currently exist. They say
    that if the institutional policies that led to violations in the past are still in existence
    and pose a danger that future violations will occur, then the court should find that
    the “current and ongoing” violation standard is met.
    14
    We discussed the scope of the “current and ongoing” standard in Parrish v.
    Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 
    156 F.3d 1128
     (11th Cir. 1998). There we took
    note of the issue about whether “current and ongoing” means that a violation must
    exist “right now” or instead means a “substantial and very real danger that a
    violation of rights will follow the termination of the injunction.” 
    Id. at 1129
    .
    However, it was not necessary for us to decide the issue in Parrish because, under
    either standard, the plaintiff could not show a “current and ongoing” violation in
    that case. 
    Id.
     That is not the case here where we are remanding for an evidentiary
    hearing in order to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to show a “current and
    ongoing” violation, so we will now resolve the issue of what that entails.
    As we observed in Parrish, the phrase “current and ongoing” was originally
    enacted as “current or ongoing.” 
    Id. at n.3
    . In 1997 Congress amended the phrase
    to substitute “and” for “or.” See Department of Justice Appropriations Act,
    Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123(a)(2), 
    111 Stat. 2440
    , 2470 (1997). The legislative
    history of the enactment, which we did not have occasion to discuss in Parrish,
    clearly shows that Congress intended “current and ongoing” to mean a presently
    existing violation, not a potential, or even likely, future violation. The conference
    report explaining the amendment makes this clear, stating that the change to
    “current and ongoing” (emphasis added):
    15
    corrects the confusing use of the word “or” to describe the limited
    circumstances when a court may continue prospective relief in prison
    conditions litigation to make clear that a constitutional violation must be
    “current and ongoing”. These dual requirements are necessary to ensure that
    court orders do not remain in place on the basis of a claim that a current
    condition that does not violate a prisoners’ Federal rights nevertheless
    requires a court decree to address it, because the condition is somehow
    traceable to a prior policy that did violate Federal rights, or that government
    officials are “poised” to resume a prior violation of federal rights.
    H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-405, at 133 (1997). Accordingly, we hold that a “current
    and ongoing” violation is a violation that exists at the time the district court
    conducts the § 3626(b)(3) inquiry, and not a potential future violation. On remand,
    the district court should hold an evidentiary hearing to allow both parties to
    present evidence on whether there are any currently existing violations of class
    members’ federal rights within the meaning of § 3626(b)(3). In accordance with
    that provision, if the district court concludes that a “current and ongoing” violation
    does exist, it must make written findings on the record about whether the
    prospective relief aimed at that violation remains necessary to correct it. The court
    will also need to address the other components of § 3626(b)(3).7
    7
    Of course, if the court finds no current and ongoing violation, the prospective relief must
    be terminated.
    16
    b. The Required Need-Narrowness-Intrusiveness Findings
    If the district court determines that there are current and ongoing violations
    sufficient to support the continuation of the prospective relief, the court must then
    determine whether the scope of the existing relief comports with the other findings
    required by § 3626(b)(3). Even where there is a current and ongoing violation,
    prospective relief must be terminated unless the district court makes written
    findings on the record that the relief extends no further than necessary to correct
    the violation, that the relief is narrowly drawn, and that the relief is the least
    intrusive means to correct the violation (hereinafter, the “need-narrowness-
    intrusiveness” findings). See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3626
    (b)(3).
    As to those factors, in this case the district court stated only that the “the
    court specifically finds, based on the content of the orders and upon the philosophy
    of the undersigned which existed prior to the enactment of the PLRA, that the
    relief set forth [in the consent decrees] extends no further than necessary to correct
    the . . . violations dealt with by the parties . . . at the time the orders were consented
    to and/or entered.” (emphasis in original). This statement indicates that the district
    court misunderstood both the nature and extent of the analysis required by §
    3626(b)(3).
    17
    With regards to the nature of the § 3626(b)(3) inquiry, the district court’s
    statement indicates that it thought the question was whether the relief contained in
    the orders extended no further then necessary “to correct the [alleged] violations
    dealt with by the parties and the court at the time the orders were consented to
    and/or entered.” (emphasis added). That is not the (b)(3) question. Instead, if there
    is a “current and ongoing” violation, the question becomes whether the
    prospective relief meets the need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements at the
    time of the court’s inquiry in response to the motion to terminate. The court must
    make new findings about whether the relief currently complies with the need-
    narrowness-intrusiveness requirements, given the nature of the current violations.
    It is not enough under § 3626(b)(3) that the orders, when entered, were sufficiently
    narrow considering the violations that existed at that time.
    Regarding the extent of the analysis, the district court’s summary conclusion
    that the consent decrees “extend[ed] no further then necessary to correct the . . .
    violations” was seriously deficient. We read § 3626(b)(3) as requiring
    particularized findings, on a provision-by-provision basis, that each requirement
    imposed by the consent decrees satisfies the need-narrowness-intrusiveness
    criteria, given the nature of the current and ongoing violation. It is not enough to
    simply state in conclusory fashion that the requirements of the consent decrees
    18
    satisfy those criteria. Particularized findings, analysis, and explanations should be
    made as to the application of each criteria to each requirement imposed by the
    consent decrees.
    On remand, rather then summarily concluding that all of the consent decrees
    satisfy all of the requirements of § 3626(b)(3), the district court should engage in a
    specific, provision-by-provision examination of the consent decrees, measuring
    each requirement against the statutory criteria. The court must determine, and enter
    findings about, whether each requirement extends no further than necessary to
    correct a current and ongoing violation of a federal right, is narrowly drawn, and
    is the least intrusive means of correcting that violation. Only if the court makes
    written findings on the record that the relief satisfies the above need-narrowness-
    intrusive standards can the prospective relief be continued.8
    B. THE DISTRICT COURT’S PURPORTED “TERMINATION” OF THE
    CONSENT DECREES
    In its order, the district court stated that it was terminating the lawsuit, but
    leaving the substantive provisions of the consent decrees intact. With respect to
    the termination of the lawsuit, the court stated that it “contemplates and directs that
    8
    Of course, we do not mean to suggest that the district court must conduct an evidentiary
    hearing about or enter particularized findings concerning any facts or factors about which there
    is not dispute. The parties are free to make any concessions or enter into any stipulations they
    deem appropriate.
    19
    all complaints regarding issues dealt with herein shall henceforth be considered in
    new lawsuits if such become necessary . . . . To that end, all provisions in the
    various orders/injunctions entered herein dealing with enforcement by way of
    contempt or otherwise, or requiring or permitting enforcement action by class
    counsel within the framework of this case are VACATED and TERMINATED.”
    (emphasis in original). With respect to preserving the substantive provisions of the
    consent decrees, the court stated, “[i]f orders or injunctions entered in [this case]
    have not been complied with, it will be up to this court or any other court having
    jurisdiction over the issue at hand to determine whether new operating procedures,
    etc. pass constitutional muster. Orders/injunctions herein previously entered may
    be taken into consideration, if applicable, as may the fact that this court does not
    wish to destroy what it considers to be positive steps taken by the [Defendants] . . .
    .” Thus, while the court intended to terminate the enforcement provisions of the
    consent decrees, it also intended that the decrees would continue to have some
    effect although it is unclear exactly what effect.
    We have considerable doubt that the district court’s partial termination of the
    prospective relief went far enough to comply with the PLRA.9 It appears as
    9
    At oral argument counsel for plaintiffs conceded that the district court’s approach was
    not proper. When that counsel was asked how he would have drafted a termination order in this
    case, he directed us to four orders that had been entered by another district court in other prison
    litigation reform cases, and told us that they were good examples of how it should be done.
    20
    though the court was interpreting § 3626(b) as operating to limit the jurisdictional
    authority of a court to enforce the decrees instead of requiring the actual
    termination of the decrees. If so, we have previously rejected that very
    interpretation of the PLRA. See Dougan v. Singletary, 
    129 F.3d 1424
    , 1426 n.4
    (11th Cir. 1997). However, we need not address that issue any further now
    because we are remanding this case for an evidentiary hearing and findings on the
    issue of whether there are any “current and ongoing” violations and, if so, on the
    need-narrowness-intrusiveness factors. Only after the district court holds the
    evidentiary hearing and enters findings will we know whether any of the decrees
    are due to be “terminated,” and only then will any issues about what termination
    entails be presented. Also it may be that any issues involving the scope of
    termination are shaped and clarified by the district court’s findings. For these
    reasons, we leave any such issues for another day.
    C. DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND
    The plaintiffs cross-appeal the denial of their motion to amend the complaint
    to include certain ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and to certify a sub-class of
    Three of those four orders said that the prior orders were “hereby vacated, dissolved, and
    terminated,” while the fourth one said that the prior orders were “hereby vacated and terminated
    and the action is dismissed.”
    21
    individuals defined as disabled under the ADA and handicapped under Section 504
    of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
    29 U.S.C. § 701
     et seq. The district court denied
    the motion on the grounds that the addition of a new sub-class more than ten years
    after the case was initially filed would needlessly prolong the already protracted
    litigation. The court also noted that the plaintiffs could present any such claims in
    a new lawsuit if they wished to pursue them.
    The plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying
    their motion to amend. The plaintiffs stress that, although some fifteen years have
    elapsed since this lawsuit was initiated, they originally sought leave to amend the
    complaint in 1995, more than four-and-one-half years ago. The district court
    delayed ruling on the motion to amend until after the Supreme Court decided
    whether the ADA was applicable to state prison systems.10 The plaintiffs argue
    that the district court’s delay in ruling on the motion was not their fault, and should
    not prejudice their efforts to bring the additional claims. They argue further that
    the parties and the court have acted since 1992 as though the substantive issues that
    the ADA and Rehabilitation Act raise were already part of the case, particularly
    10
    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the ADA did apply to state prisons in
    Pennsylvania Dep’t. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 
    118 S. Ct. 1952
    , 
    524 U.S. 206
     (1998).
    22
    with respect to mental health care and conditions at geriatric and disabled inmate
    facilities.
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides, in pertinent part, that “a party
    may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the
    adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). While the plaintiffs stress that leave to amend “shall be freely
    given,” we stress that our review of the district court’s denial of leave to amend is
    limited to deciding whether there has been an abuse of discretion, which means we
    give that court considerably more leeway than if we were reviewing its decision de
    novo. See In re Rasbury, 
    24 F.3d 159
    , 168 (11th Cir. 1994). The question before
    this Court is not whether we would have granted leave to amend under the “freely
    given” standard of Rule 15, but whether the district court abused its discretion by
    not granting it under that standard and in the circumstances of this case. As we
    have observed before, when we review only for abuse of discretion the district
    court has “a range of choice ...so long as that choice does not constitute a clear
    error of judgment.” 
    Id.
     (citation and quotation omitted).
    Even if we focus, as the plaintiffs argue that we should, on the date on which
    plaintiffs initially filed their motion to amend rather then on the date when the
    district court ultimately ruled on it, we cannot say that it the district court’s denial
    23
    of the motion constituted a clear error of judgment. The plaintiffs sought to amend
    the complaint nearly eleven-and-one-half years after it was filed. Despite their
    protestations that the ADA did not exist when they filed the suit, it had existed for
    nearly five years before they filed leave to amend, and the Rehabilitation Act had
    been in existence since before they filed the lawsuit. Finally, as the district court
    noted, if plaintiffs wish to pursue any claims they might have under the ADA and
    the Rehabilitation Act, they will not be unduly burdened by having to file a new
    lawsuit to do so.
    III. CONCLUSION
    We AFFIRM that portion of the district court’s order denying plaintiffs
    leave to amend their complaint.
    We VACATE that portion of the district court’s order denying an
    evidentiary hearing and partially terminating the consent decrees, and we
    REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    24
    25