green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: David R. Ruiz, United States of … ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
15.1 score
“courts accord the decisions of prison officials extreme deference . . . especially in matters of internal security”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Canal Barge Co Inc v. Gulfstream Trdg Ltd
n a bench per day. 8 trial the assessment of witness credibility is inherently his province.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nowlin v. Scurr
courts accord the decisions of prison officials extreme deference . . . especially in matters of internal security
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons
As the Fifth Circuit explained, “[a]ccess to courts entails not only freedom to file pleadings but also freedom to employ ... those accessories without which legal claims cannot be effectively asserted.” Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1153 (5th Cir.1982), partially vacated on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266, 267 (5th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David A. Clarke v. United States
(2×)
See Bumpus v. Clark, 702 F.2d 826, 826-27 (9th Cir.1983); Ruiz v. Estelle, 688 F.2d 266, 267 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Junior Ray Duckworth, Cross-Appellants v. Gayle Franzen, Cross-Appellees
See, e.g., Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 984-86 (4th Cir.1985); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1152-53 (5th Cir.1982), modified, 688 F.2d 266, 267 (1982) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres v. Russ Skinner
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir.) (“[R]ule 53 does not terminate or modify the district court’s inherent equitable power to appoint a person, whatever be his title, to assist it in administering a remedy.”), amended in part, vacated in part on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thunderhorse v. Collier
He estimates the proposed class to include between 400 and “a few thousand” inmates (id. at 5).1 He argues that he should be appointed lead plaintiff based on his personal history, experience, and legal skill, pointing out that he has been in TDCJ custody since 1978 and is the only class member from the Ruiz litigation who is still alive and in TDCJ custody (Dkt. 22, at 10, 14; see Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982) (affirming in part a decree that ordered reforms to conditions of confinement in Texas prison system), amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1…
discussed
Cited "see"
(PC) Coleman v. Newsom
As it 9 previously has informed the court, the United States has a “broad interest in ensuring that 10 conditions of confinement in state . . . correctional facilities are consistent with the Constitution 11 and federal law.” Statement of Interest of the United States of America, ECF No. 4736, at 2; see 12 also 28 U.S.C. § 517.3 In other comparable circumstances, the United States has participated in 13 an action to “encourag[e] state officials to take action to safeguard the rights” of incarcerated 14 persons and to “ensur[e] ‘conservation of judicial resources.’” Ruiz v. Est…
discussed
Cited "see"
Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1162-63 (5th Cir.), amended in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Ronnie Davis v. James LeBlanc
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1137 (5th Cir.), amended in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Diaz v. McGuire
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1155 (5th Cir.) (“Wolff ... does not require tape recordings”), modified in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nickerson v. Texas
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 , stay denied in part, granted in part 650 F.2d 555 and 666 F.2d 854 , affirmed in part, reversed in part 679 F.2d 1115 , amended in part, vacated in part 688 F.2d 266 , certiorari denied 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ruiz v. Estelle
See generally Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D.Tex.1980), rev’d in part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982), modified in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Rodriguez
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1154 (5th Cir.1982) (citation omitted ) ("systemwide injunctive relief may not be predicated on individual misconduct that 'is not part of a pattern of persistent and deliberate official policy' "), opinion amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Brown
See 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D.Tex.1980) aff'd in part and vacated in part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.), amended in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gartrell v. Gaylor
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D.Tex.1980), aff 'd in part, rev’d in part, 679 F.2d 1115 , and amended in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph George Finocchi v. Department of Corrections for the State of Arizona and Maricopa County Jail
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265, 1277 (S.D.Tex.1980), modified on other grounds, 679 F.2d 1115, 1146-48 (5th Cir.1982) (modifying the remedial measures ordered by the district court to reduce overcrowding), amended in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983). 14 As we held in Hoptowit, the effects of overcrowding on other constitutionally mandated services may also constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
cited
Cited "see"
Huey P. McDuffie v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 619 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.), amended in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Greene v. Town of Blooming Grove
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1157-59 (5th Cir.), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). 12 The exercise of pendent jurisdiction where a pendent claim is pleaded is within the discretion of the district court, and is "not [the] plaintiff's right." United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 , 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); see also Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League, 415 U.S. 605, 627 , 94 S.Ct. 1323, 1336 , 39 L.Ed.2d 630 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Greene v. Town of Blooming Grove
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1157-59 (5th Cir.), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982) (partial vacatur, limited to issue parties had settled), cited with approval in Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 706 (D.C.Cir.1990)( (en banc). 3 The Clerk is directed to issue forthwith a certified copy of this order to the district court in lieu of formal mandate.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gentile v. County of Suffolk
See Cranberg v. Consumers Union, Inc., 756 F.2d 382, 391 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (not only does Rule 611(a) put affirmative obligation on the judge to avoid consumption of time, but, as common law judge, he or she has overall responsibility to see that the trial is not subject to delay) (citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1129 (5th Cir.1982), modified, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983)); In re Summa T Corp., 73 B.R. 388, 392 (Ark. 1987) (Rule 1006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
(2×)
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F. 2d 1115, 1137 (CA5), modified on other grounds, 688 F. 2d 266 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U. S. 1042 (1983); Toledo, P. & W.
discussed
Cited "see"
Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
Rule Civ.Proc. 53. 42 Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 3053 , 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986); see Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1160-61 (5th Cir.), amended in part on rehearing, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir.1979). 43 CAMP contends, however, that an exceptional condition under Rule 53(b) arises only when there has been both a final determination of a constitutional violation and a determination of intentional disregard of court orders.
discussed
Cited "see"
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 3053 , 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986); see Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1160-61 (5th Cir.), amended in part on rehearing, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1159-63 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
David Ruiz v. James A. Lynaugh, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections
(2×)
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1148-50 (5th Cir.), amended in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Benjamin v. Malcolm
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1145 (5th Cir.) (In context of prison administration, courts should "fashion 'the least intrusive remedy that will still be effective.' " (footnote omitted)), amended in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Resident Advisory Board v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126 , 149 (3d Cir.1977) ("federal equitable relief must be carefully tailored to be no more intrusive than is necessary"); Gates v. Collier, 407 F.Supp. 1117, 1121 (N.D.Miss.1975) ("[N]o court is bound to invoke …
discussed
Cited "see"
Benjamin v. Malcolm
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1145 (5th Cir.) (In context of prison administration, courts should “fashion ‘the least intrusive remedy that will still be effective.’ ” (footnote omitted)), amended in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Resident Advisory Board v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126, 149 (3d Cir.1977) (“federal equitable relief must be carefully tailored to be no more intrusive than is necessary”); Gates v. Collier, 407 F.Supp. 1117, 1121 (N.D.Miss.1975) (“[N]o court is bou…
cited
Cited "see"
Young v. Pierce
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1163 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Alfred Ray Bradshaw v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1129 , aff'd in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad Co. v. Illinois
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1137 (5th Cir.1982) (in enacting section 1983, Congress did not intend to override the traditional immunity of states and state agencies), amended and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 , cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad Company v. State Of Illinois
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1137 (5th Cir.1982) (in enacting section 1983, Congress did not intend to override the traditional immunity of states and state agencies), amended and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 , cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cody v. Hillard
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 , 1139 & n. 98 (5th Cir.) (citing cases), modified per curiam, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Winston S. Morris, of the Estate of Robert Taylor Morris, Deceased v. The Ltv Corporation
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1129 (5th Cir.1982), amended in part on other grounds and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed. 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bruce D. Wellman, Cross-Appellees v. Gordon H. Faulkner, Cross-Appellants
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1139-40 (5th Cir.), modified, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
Howard v. King
Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc ), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 950 , 102 S.Ct. 27 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981); see Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1139 (5th Cir.), amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d ---- (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Howard v. King
Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 950 , 102 S.Ct. 27 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981); see Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1139 (5th Cir.), amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bienvenu v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1137-40 (5th Cir.) amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (1982); Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1373-74 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc), cert. dismissed 453 U.S. 950 , 102 S.Ct. 27 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981) (articulating the “totality of conditions” test, id. at 1368, and holding that the combined impact of the indecent conditions at a state prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Wilkerson v. Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1151-52 (5th Cir.) (confinement of inmates for long periods of time without opportunity for regular physical exercise may, depending on the facts of each case, constitute cruel and unusual punishment), modified, 688 F.2d 266 (1982). 5 IV.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shaw v. Smith
See id. at 130 ; see also Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1145 (5th Cir.), amended in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1992) (stating in prison-reform case that, federal courts should “fashion the least intrusive remedy that will still be effective” and that “the remedy should begin with what is absolutely necessary” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 , 1107–1108 (9th Cir. 1986) (“An injunction must be narrowly tailored to cure the constitutional violation and must not intrude on the functions of state officials u…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC
See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982), amended in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re: Deepwater Horizon
P. 53(b)(2)(C); see also id., Advisory Committee Notes (2003 Amendment) (“The materials to be provided to support review of the report will depend on the nature of the report.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cobell v. Norton
See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161-62 (5th Cir.) (prison reform), amended in part, reh’g denied in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982); Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 612 F.2d 84 , 111 (3d Cir.1979) (en banc) (reform of institution for the mentally retarded), rev’d on other grounds, 451 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 1531 , 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981); Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir.1979) (same); id. (col- lecting cases); Ross Sandler & David Schoenbrod, Democracy by Decree 55-57 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cobell, Elouise v. Norton, Gale
See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161-62 (5th Cir.) (prison reform), amended in part, reh’g denied in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982); Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 612 F.2d 84 , 111 (3d Cir.1979) (en banc) (reform of institution for the mentally retarded), rev’d on other grounds, 451 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 1531 , 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981); Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir.1979) (same); id. (collecting cases); Ross Sandler & David Schoenbrod, Democracy by Decree 55-57 (2003).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cobell v. Norton
See also Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir.1982), vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982) (noting that “the remedy should begin with what is absolutely necessary.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosales v. Coughlin
In Dean , the Second Circuit stated that a “correctional facility is not a health spa, but a prison in which convicted felons are incarcerated.” 804 F.2d at *265 215; see also Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1149 (5th Cir.) (“The Constitution does not command that inmates be given the kind of medical attention that judges would wish to have for themselves”), vacated in part as moot, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Apex Municipal Fund v. N-Group Securities
See, e.g., Ruiz, 679 F.2d 1115, 1148 (5th Cir.), amended, in part, vacated in part, reh’g denied in part, 688 F.2d 266 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983).
David R. RUIZ, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee,
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
81-2224, 81-2380 and 81-2390.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 16, 1982.
Mark White, Atty. Gen. of Tex., Douglas M. Becker, Ed Idar, Jr., Kenneth L. Petersen, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Pike Powers, Austin,. Tex., Lee C. Clyburn, William R. Pakalka, Jerry E. Smith, Houston, Tex., Keith A. Jones, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants., Donald W. Jackson, Asst. County Atty., Edward J. Landry, Houston, Tex., for Heard., William Bennett Turner, San Francisco, Cal., Steven L. Winter, Joel Berger, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Samuel T. Biscoe, Dallas, Tex., for Ruiz, et al., James Wiginton, Angleton, Tex., Donna Brorby, San Francisco, Cal., for L. D. Hilliard., David J. W. Vanderhoff, Senior Trial Atty., Dennis J. Dimsey, Atty., W. Bradford Reynolds, Appellate Section, Civil Rights Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the U. S. A., David Crump, Law School, University of Houston, Susan E. Waite, The Legal Foundation of America, Houston, Tex., for amicus curiae The Legal Foundation of America., Alvin J. Bronstein, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae ACLU — Nat. Prison Project., ON PETITION FOR REHEARING, (Opinion June 23, 5 Cir., 1982, 679 F.2d 1115)
Clark, Per Curiam, Rubin, Tate.
Cited by 248 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1) · Supreme Court of Iowa (1)
After an opinion was rendered in this case, Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982) (hereinafter cited by volume and page number only), counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees, a class comprising the inmates confined in the various institutions operated by the' Texas Department of Corrections (“TDC”), filed a petition for rehearing. It tells us, for the first time, that the parties disposed of one of the issues after it was briefed, argued, and submitted, and before the court issued its opinion. The petition also seeks reconsideration of other issues. We consider these points separately.
I
The parties resolved the Huntsville Unit Hospital issue several months before we issued our opinion in this case. In accordance with the request made by the inmate class and acquiesced in by the defendants, we vacate Parts 6.6 and 11.5(2) of the panel opinion, 679 F.2d at 1149-50, 1165, which treat that issue.
II
The plaintiffs assert that the parties have agreed to a TDC fire safety plan that has been tentatively approved by the district court. Nothing contained in our opinion intimates that this agreement, never previously called to our attention, should be set aside, whether or not the fire safety provisions of the prior district court decree are affirmed. Accordingly, without setting aside our prior determination on this issue, see Parts 6.8, 11.5(5), 679 F.2d at 1152-53, 1165, we state expressly that the parties are not precluded from obtaining the district court’s approval of a remedial order that grants additional relief. Cf. United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 447 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (plurality opinion) (“[T]he parties to litigation are not to be deprived of the opportunity to compose their differences .... ”).
III
Our ruling that double-celling of inmates in administrative segregation does not constitute cruel and unusual punish-» ment, Parts 6.7, 11.5(3), 679 F.2d at 1150-51, 1165, was based only on the record before us. It was not intended to preclude either party from seeking further relief. Accordingly, our opinion is. amended so that Part IV(C)(3) of the district court’s decree is vacated without prejudice.
IV
We adhere to our holding that the direction to TDC to use good time, parole, and furlough programs was unduly intrusive. We fail to perceive how, under the district court’s decree, even as modified by us, TDC will again become so overcrowded as to warrant such intrusion, for the decree contains specific provisions that limit prison population. TDC’s problem will be whether there are facilities permitting the admission[*268] of inmates, not the method of discharging inmates. However, should TDC fail to comply with the district court’s decree, and the inmate population be increased beyond the number authorized by the space requirements of the decree, and should TDC fail to remedy the situation, our order shall not preclude the direction of specific remedies.
V
Sua sponte, we clarify the references in our opinion to the time within which either party may seek changes in the district court’s decree. Application for such changes may be filed after the decree, as modified by us, has been in force for one year, and the hearing shall be held in due course thereafter.
In all other respects the petition for rehearing is DENIED.