BASED ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST EXCESSIVE FORMS OF PUNISHMENT, THE COURTS HAVE UTILIZED 42 U.S. CODE SECTION 1983 AS A TOOL FOR PRISON REFORM BECAUSE OF ITS WIDE SELECTION OF REMEDIES. MOST CASES INVOLVING IMPROPER PRISON CONDITIONS HAVE UTILIZED SECTION 1983'S PROVISION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF TO SEEK BROAD-RANGING INJUNCTIVE ORDERS WHICH REQUIRE MASSIVE IMPROVEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO PRISON FACILITIES. THE COURTS HAVE ALSO USED THEIR EQUITY POWERS TO ORDER THAT PRISONERS BE RELEASED FROM CONFINEMENT. THESE INJUNCTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN 'CONDITIONS' CASES HAVE CREATED SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE COURTS. TO FASHION A DECREE AND MONITOR COMPLIANCE IN SUCH CASES, COURTS HAVE USED VARIOUS MECHANISMS INCLUDING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEES, EXPERT PANELS, SPECIAL MASTERS, MONITORS, OMBUDSMEN, AND RECEIVERS. THE TYPE OF MECHANISM SELECTED BY THE COURTS DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEIR PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP A DECREE OR MONITOR COMPLIANCE. CASES ARE CITED WHICH HAVE EMPLOYED THESE MECHANISMS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IS EVALUATED. CASES ALSO ILLUSTRATE THE MECHANSIM THE COURT USED TO DEAL WITH OVERCROWDING, PROBABLY THE MOST PERSUASIVE FACTOR IN A COURT'S DECISION THAT THE 'TOTALITY' OF PRISON CONDITIONS VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. APPENDIXES PRESENT A SUMMARY OF THE STATUS IN 32 STATES OF PENDING PRISON LITIGATION, AND THE ORDER OF REFERENCE IN JONES V. WITTENBERG AND PALMIGIANO V. GARRAHY. FOOTNOTES AND A TABLE OF CASES ARE INCLUDED. (WJR)