Perhaps more than other institutions, correctional facilities require vigorous scrutiny: They are uniquely powerful institutions, depriving millions of people each year of liberty and taking responsibility for their security, yet are walled off from the public. They mainly confine the most powerless groups in America-poor people who are disproportionately African-American and Latino. (p. 77) Oversight of prisons is, according to the Commission on Safety, "underdeveloped and uneven" (p. 78). Until this is corrected, prisons will continue to thrive on values repugnant to a humane society.Since the demise of the judiciary's aptly named hands-off doctrine some 40 years ago (Krantz & Branham, 1997), lower federal courts have provided the most oversight of state and federal correctional institutions (Feeley & Hanson, 1990;Feeley & Rubin, 1998;Robertson, 2000). The U.S. courts of appeals, at first blush, are particularly well suited for judicial oversight because they exercise mandatory jurisdiction over appeals from the federal trial courts and the U.S. district courts (Hellman, 1999). Moreover, few cases (1%) progress further because of the U.S. Supreme Court's highly selective use of certiorari (George & Solimine, 2001).Scrutiny of jails and prisons by the 13 courts of appeals has been circumscribed by three developments. Intended to remove frivolous lawsuits from the channels of litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-134) has dramatically reduced the number of prisoner civil rights filings. During 2005, the year of the most recent tally, there were 2,653 private prisoner civil rights appeals